Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Formal Checkuser Investigation
1) The Committee is asked to have Checkusers evaluate the material at Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence as soon as possible, to preventatively stop disruption and harassment on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Noted. FT2 (Talk 13:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I ask that the Committee, based on my evidence, privately contact Checkusers to evaluate my evidence as supplied at Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Another apparent BryanFromPalatine sock,, posted outing information and Free Republic links with personal information Wikipedia editors on the RFAR page tonight (I already mailed Oversight). I simply ask that the Committee investigate this ASAP, as it appears that this person is rampaging through Wikipedia, if I am correct. If Checkusers state that I am wrong, I swear here to drop this sockpuppetry matter and not mention it again. I'm simply concerned that this seems to be getting escalated now by this BFP person. Lawrence Cohen  07:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted additional information on another likely/possible BFP sock, Samurai Commuter, and another editor has provided additional research and evidence here. Lawrence Cohen  00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a must to say one way or another as these sockpuppeting alligations have already caused innocent noobs to get a wp:BITE. (Hypnosadist )  12:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I post this to RFCU instead? Lawrence Cohen  18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Arbitrators think this is supported by enough evidence, I think they'll ask a Checkuser admin to do it privately. Neutral Good (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Several of the active arbitrators are checkusers. They will sort this out.  Keep in mind that checkuser is not magic pixie dust.  A determined puppet master can do things that make detection much harder.  Jehochman  Talk 19:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I received a request from Lawrence Cohen at my talk to carry out this investigation. He relates he asked Alison and FT2 as well. Absent this motion having passed, I view this as a request I can act on at my discretion... so I will evaluate the evidence and make my report (of what I decided to do, and what I determined from the evidence if I decided to run any checks) at my talk page. What Alison and FT2 do may of course differ. If someone from ArbCom thinks this is an incorrect interpretation please let me know. (preliminarily, it appears to me a check is merited) ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Continue evidence stage for 30 days
2) Due to failure to notify User:Samurai Commuter of these proceedings or name him as a party to these proceedings, the evidence stage will continue for 30 days. Alternative remedy is to delete any mention of Samurai Commuter from these proceedings, including the parties' evidence and workshop discussions, and no final decision in this matter will be directed against Samurai Commuter.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Here we have three experienced editors sneaking around behind my back, trying to get me banned in an ArbCom proceeding without any notification, without even a suggestion that I might have anything to worry about from ArbCom, and without even naming me as a party. That was so underhanded that I have no words to express what I'm feeling right now and if I did, I'd be blocked for posting them.


 * I'm leaving on a red-eye flight for a long anticipated vacation with my family in the morning, to a warm foreign country with no Internet access. I have been caught by complete surprise by this dastardly subterfuge, and will have no time to even start preparing my defense until I return on February 18. This underhanded ambush can wait until then. Both Free Republic and Waterboarding are fully protected, so no harm would be done by the delay. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: your subject line of "I've never seen anything this underhanded on Wikipedia" to add this request here--does this mean that you have a history on WP before the past two weeks? Under what username(s)? How are you so familiar with deep-end Wikipedia processes and Arbcom, in only two weeks? Strong oppose this. Lawrence § t/e 13:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this gentleman's motion very strongly. Mr. Cohen, you have no one to blame but yourself and Mr. Eschoir for this. Both of you failed to notify Samurai Commuter that you were trying to get him banned in an ArbCom proceeding. Do you have any explanation for that? Were you trying to sneak around behind his back and get him banned, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself? 209.221.240.193 (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to get Samurai Commuter banned, I have said repeatedly that I am against banning. For one thing, it's futile, obviously.  I would like Smurai Commuter to get identified. Eschoir (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, assuming arguendo that I wanted SC banned, SC precluded notification by posting the following:

I've registered an account and I hope you like it. Eschoir, any messages at all from you on my User page or User Talk page will be treated as vandalism. Samurai Commuter (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC) That is indeed havaing it both ways!Eschoir (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the other two editors working in concert with you, and posting evidence against him, could have posted notification on Samurai Commuter's Talk page. Without notice, it's a secret court. Neutral Good (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * More trolling. Assumes 'two editors working in concert with [me].' Besides the hidden agenda displayed in the technical use of those particular words, I'm not working 'in concert' with Cohen, and I have no idea who the 2nd editor would be. Eschoir (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 209 editor, in hindsight, I should have just opened a new section in Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine, which already has extensive and proven evidence of extensive similar if not identical sockpuppetry from BryanFromPalatine/DeanHinnen. It was a waste of the arbiters time to bring this particular one here for action. To them, I apologize. Lawrence § t/e 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that parties such as BryanFromPalatine, Neutral Good, Shabumi2, Sammurai Commuter, "Bob", 209.221.240.193 (a confirmed Bryan sock puppet) and the IPs with similar editing style are all working toward the same goals: (1) spinning the article to introduce doubt that waterboarding might not be torture, and failing that, (2) keeping the article locked as long as possible to prevent information that might be damaging to the Bush Administration from being added. This request for additional time is essentially a Freeper ploy to further Goal #2. Jehochman  Talk 14:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with the assessment by Jehochman and expand. Also, from having read a frankly time if not life-wasting amount of material related to the previous Free Republic case the past few days, this is classic BryanFromPalatine/DeanHinnen. He seemed exceptionally stubborn, and went out of his way to extend, prolong, and draw out process as long as possible to try to poison everyone's name around him. He does use that phrase "poison pen letter to Jim Robinson" fairly often on his various usernames, but he just wants to draw out all this as long as possible to poison pen letter Eschoir in retaliation for the previous "IRL" legal victories that editor apparently had over Free Republic, LLC and BryanFromPalatine/DeanHinnen in turn will go after editors on-Wiki that oppose this goal of vengeance against Eschoir equally. Eschoir is the victim of concerted harassment here. Lawrence § t/e 14:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Cohen and Mr. Eschoir have brought this on themselves by failing, or deliberately refusing, to notify Samurai Commuter that they were trying to get him banned in these proceedings. There is no excusing it. Proceeding against Samurai Commuter at this point would be outrageous. Mr. Hochman, I don't believe that any policy interpretations regarding content disputes at Waterboarding would necessarily have to be delayed. I think a remedy for Mr. Commuter's issue could be fashioned that would allow the Committee to proceed on those content-related policy issues that concern you, since Mr. Commuter wasn't involved and doesn't seem concerned. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbiters, Checkusers, this post is basically "channelling" BryanFromPalatine/DeanHinnen. Can we please just block all of this thing's socks and hard block all their IPs so we can all get back to writing articles? Lawrence § t/e 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to be wikilawyering. I am not surprised by the use (or abuse) of procedure by BryanFromPalatine, a lawyer who is banned from editing Wikipedia, and those accounts who act on his behalf. Jehochman  Talk 14:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It gets so much richer. Read the 2nd entry that I just added to Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence in regards to this 209 editor and Rachel Marsden. Lawrence § t/e 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Still no explanation of your failure to notify Mr. Commuter that you're trying to get him banned? 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They have been commenting on this page, so they are clearly aware of what's going on.  Jehochman  Talk 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to support this request. The account User:Samurai Commuter has never been a party to the waterboarding debacle. If this account can present compelling evidence at a later stage, any remedy imposed by the committee can be reversed. henrik •talk  16:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't think this is reasonable. User:Samurai Commuter has started contributing to Wikipedia only two weeks ago - now he asks for a delay more than twice his tenure. Also, as far as I can tell he has contributed to neither Waterboarding or Talk:Waterboarding, so it is not surprising that he is not named as a party to this case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I need more time, so I would be glad to see some extension but this new inclusion of Samurai Commuter and Eschor seems ridiculous. I do not think either of them were particularly part of the Waterboarding matter and inclusion here is some sort of weirdness that I do not understand. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Samurai Commuter has joined the choir invisible. Eschoir (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Include Eschoir as party and his COI as subject matter
2.1) All the allegations made by User:Samurai Commuter in the recent request for clarification will be posted on the Evidence page and the Committee will consider evidence and render a decision on the alleged WP:COI problem of User:Eschoir at Free Republic. Eschoir and Lawrence Cohen should be blocked immediately for edit warring and CANVASS violations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Let's get all related issues out on the table and get all of them resolved. Just this morning, Eschoir came back from a 3RR 24 hour block and immediately resumed his edit war, and also violated WP:CANVASS by bringing in Lawrence Cohen via off-Wiki contact. Lawrence Cohen had never previously edited the FR article, but hit the ground running by supporting Eschoir's edit war and repeating his reverts. Lawrence has also been doing some profane canvassing of his own on Arbitrators' User Talk pages. This misconduct invites immediate and unequivocal response from the Committee against these offenders. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disruptive sock puppets should be blocked. First edit of Samurai Commuter: Jehochman  Talk 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. And where on Earth did I violate CANVASS? Oh, I see. If that is a canvass violation, I welcome sanctions for protecting Wikipedia. Lawrence § t/e 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm isn't helpful in this instance
 * Please provide evidence of a violation here because I don't see it in his edit history
 * As much as I disagree with you elsewhere, I agree there was no violation of WP:CANVASS in this instance. Contacting a single admin regarding a discussion of a 3RR violation is not a violation of WP:CANVASS. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that SC's entire efforts here are to "get" BryanFromPalatine's old "archenemy", Eschoir, and to fight to get the unneeded "agents... provacateurs" passage that BryanFromPalatine fought to get into the Free Republic article into the article. Lawrence § t/e 07:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that Mr. Cohen suddenly appeared in the middle of an edit war and started furiously reverting in support of Mr. Eschoir, after being so closely allied with him on these pages. Reasonable inferences may be drawn by the Arbitration Committee regarding probable off-Wiki efforts at WP:CANVASS by Mr. Eschoir. Here is evidence of the sudden barrage of edit warring on Free Republic by Mr. Cohen: Evidence of his profane canvassing on four Arbitrators' User Talk pages: "It is fucking harassing me at this point" 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see evidence of a troll pushing an editor over the edge. We need to go to the source of the problem to solve it.  Trolls frequently shout "incivility" after stabbing an editor over and over again with provocative comments, often delivered by sock puppets.  See User:Geogre/Comic. Jehochman  Talk 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see my clicking on contribution lists of the demonstrated sockpuppets after doing research into BryanFromPalatine's obsessive crusades, and I saw a variety of "unconnected" editors such as Shibumi2 and Samurai Commuter furiously working to re-insert material constantly advocated by BryanFromPalatine ("Agents... provacateurs" nonsense). If there is no action on these wildy disruptive puppets in several days, should I just bring my entire evidence section to the BryanFromPalatine RFCU? Lawrence § t/e 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What happens at arbitration stays at arbitration, but I think it would be reasonable to provide a link from that RFCU to the evidence page here so that all the information is visible should the checkuser wish to review it. Jehochman  Talk 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cross-linking will be quite thorough, between here and there, if there is no action on the RFCU/puppetry concerns. Lawrence § t/e 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eschoir and BenBurch, by presenting evidence on the Evidence page against Samurai Commuter, have made themselves parties to this proceeding and are subject to its decisions. For that reason, evidence of their misconduct and WP:COI violations should be considered and acted upon. I see claims of innocence by these parties. If they're innocent, then they won't have anything to lose in a formal inquiry into their behavior. Neutral Good (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also request a decision by Arbitration Committee on this motion. Eschoir has very severe WP:COI issue. He should not be editing Free Republic or any related pages. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * He just wants another bite at this appleEschoir (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But you don't have any objection. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly do. Box'o'Sox wants to revisit a RfA that reviewed the situation and found no COI regarding a lawsuit that was dismissed with prejudice seven years ago so that he can post links to a disbarred attorney's (and his mentor's) twisted fr account of that lawsuit again and out me as he was outed.  I most certainly object.Eschoir (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have brought this on yourself through your continued misconduct since the RfA, and by admitting that you are the individual in question. You outed yourself. I've read the evidence presented by Samurai Commuter in his request for clarification and it is thoroughly damning. Neutral Good (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is pure trolling. "Probable off wiki efforts at WP:CANVASS by Mr. Eschoir"?  The indictment reads "Eschoir canvassed Cohen" which fails to allege violation of WP:CANVASS on its face. "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians . . . "  Last I checked, Cohen was not multiple wikipedians. [The same can't be said for Bryan : ) Eschoir (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And there wasn't even any canvassing, unless my clicking on "Contributions" a bunch counts. And removing material posted/advocated by a banned puppeteer isn't edit warring. Lawrence § t/e 05:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the proper charge is that you're stalking Shibumi2. You had no previous interest in that article, until you saw that he was involved with it by clicking on his contribs. Neutral Good (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The 209 IP has touched that page; the Bob IPs have touched that page, Samurai Commuter has touched Waterboarding, and I watch the RFAR page. You're not trying hard enough to separate the voices between usernames anymore, by the way. They're all starting to sound exactly the same. Lawrence § t/e 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How long has it been since any of the 24,750 people at the 209 IP address have touched that page? You have a tendency to conceal such details (because they demolish the case you're trying to prove). How long has it been, Lawrence? Nearly a year, hasn't it? And when did "Bob" edit Free Republic or its Talk page? And when did Samurai Commuter edit Waterboarding or its Talk page? Is it your position that there's only one person in the world who edits Wikipedia using a Sprint wireless account, and that his name is Bryan? Answer these questions, please. You aren't being honest about the evidence. Neutral Good (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to soapboxing (such as advocacy or propaganda), furtherance of external conflicts, and political, racial, or ideological struggle—is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Everything else is secondary or tertiary to making a neutral encyclopedia. That includes pushing advocacy or politics. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose We certainly strive for NPOV and WP should not be used as a soapbox, advocacy, or a propoganda tool, but should not be taken to mean that those who disagree with the given wording necessarily fall under this description. WP:AGF applies too. Dismissing someone else's view as advocacy/propoganda/politics without a discussion is implies elitism and is hostile/uncivil: From WP:NPA: "...some types of comments are never acceptable:...Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not." 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Er... if you're not here to make a neutral encyclopedia, why are you here? That is this website's purpose and mission statement.  Lawrence Cohen  19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not argue with the statement per se, but your conclusion. Protection of personal information can be an overriding concern to NPOV as are preventing threats. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we only publish material from reliable sources, worrying about personal information or undefined threats aren't a concern. Again, why else would anyone be editing this website, except to build a free, neutral encyclopedia? Lawrence Cohen  21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can publish from reliable sources and still violate WP:BLP, et al. All I am saying is that there are other primary concerns besides neutrality, like personal safety. Such a blanket statement (your conclusion, not the quote) is misleading. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What does personal safety have to do with an article on our website that is fully compliant with policy? What theoretical harm are you alluding to? Please explain. Are you implying that if Waterboarding is called a form of torture on Wikipedia, someone could come to personal harm in the real world? Lawrence Cohen  23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Fully compliant with policy" was never stated in this claim. I am referring to improper use of personal information. I can type someone's social security number in and they can have financial problems because fraudulent credit cards are opened in their name (this is simply one example; another is below...). I am not implying that if "waterboarding is called a form of torture on Wikipedia, someone could come to personal harm in the real world." That has nothing to do with this, but such a statement backed by such an interpretation (see the poster's comments) could have reaching consequences that impact more than what is intended. All I am saying is that the statement above is fine as-is. His interpretation that NPOV is the sole primary concern is not IAW Policies_and_guidelines: "Neutral point of view is a founding Wikipedia principle. Other core content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles."  — BQZip01 —  talk 04:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your arguments aren't even making sense now, and have no grounding in any interpretation of policy I understand. What exactly are you saying? That some other standard supercedes NPOV, our highest level policy? Lawrence Cohen  06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * #Stop the insults.
 * I again reiterate policy (Policies_and_guidelines): "Neutral point of view is a founding Wikipedia principle. Other core content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." As it plainly states, NPOV is not meant to be interpreted independently. It is not the "highest level policy". — BQZip01 —  talk 06:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I literally did not understand the point you were trying to make, and it wasn't an insult. You seem rather heated for some reason, and I apologize if you took that as insulting. It wasn't meant to be. The three core policies do not supercede each other, but all content must adhere to all of them. This finding as written is also almost always supported in a long history of arbitration cases. If it was not accurate, why would our Arbitration Committee endorse it again and again? Lawrence Cohen  06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment stricken. I apologize as well.
 * Again, the finding is not the problem. Your interpretation (as stated in your comments) is. Specifically "Everything else is secondary or tertiary to making a neutral encyclopedia." simply isn't true. NPOV is not #1 and "everything else" is a secondary concern. There are policies that should be used in conjunction with NPOV. Again, there is nothing wrong with your finding, but your comments. As long as we agree on this basic principle, then we have nothing to disagree about here. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, cheers. Lets have tea. Lawrence Cohen  18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (no support) Do not like the wording. Would prefer to separate the concepts of Neutrality from the concept of Encyclopedia. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to no accept this possible in this case, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Civility
2) Civility is a requirement on Wikipedia; users must act civilly toward one another. Incivility in response to someone else's prior incivility is not acceptable, either. Repeated instances of incivility after requests to desist is grounds for preventative sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% true. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Agree 100% true. Guilty at times, I have backed out a lot in recognition, easily baited :-(. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree--Blue Tie (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Decorum
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited.  Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% true. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Agree But I think this is redundant with Civility. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Assume good faith
4) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose You should not assume good faith in all dealings. The guideline specifically states the opposite:
 * "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." (emphasis in original)
 * 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Oppose Not absolute. Unable to in some cases due to history and lack of interest in reconciliation attempts. Only course available to me was ignore page so it can be dealt with. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree With the reservation that it is not always right to assume good faith but the evidence of bad behavior has to be really confirmed and it should be flagrant. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Consensus can change
5) A previously-accepted consensus may be altered if opinions surrounding it have demonstrably changed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Consensus can always change. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% true. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Agree--Blue Tie (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Consensus should be followed
6) If a consensus is formed, it should be followed unless an extenuating circumstance (such as overriding one of Wikipedia's core policies) prevents it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Unless a consensus goes counter to a core policy, it should be honored. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Oversimplistic. WP:CONSENSUS in a single instance cannot override another larger consensus. Furthermore, WP:BLP is not a core policy, but needs to be enforced despite that. Given that a "consensus" is such a nebulous idea in the first place, this statement tries to make jello equivalent to concrete. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * This is a standard that has been applied in multiple RFAR cases and basic site policy before. I looked that specifically up, which is why I added this. Are you disagreeing with all the past precedent on this? Lawrence Cohen  20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but your conclusion underlying your statement makes misses a crucial distinction: Core policies are not the only thing that can override consensus. As an example, WP:BLP can override consensus. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you weren't aware, BLP is a core policy. Lawrence Cohen  21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons: "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia." If you actually try to argue that BLP isn't one of our most important policies, you've zero chance of getting any support on that from anyone who cares about Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen  23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't a policy. I never said it wasn't an important policy (as a matter of fact, further posts on this page state the exact opposite...and you know it because you've responded to them). I stated it was not a "core" policy IAW Policies_and_guidelines: "Neutral point of view is a founding Wikipedia principle. Other core content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.". Furthermore, I have no intention of responding to further inquiries such as these as they are completely off topic and, IMHO, are becoming disruptive in that they are a waste of time. You and I have differing views. Let's see what ArbCom has to say about this. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. You can begin by not challenging every single opinion that runs counter to yours. The arbiters are far smarter than you. Or I. Lawrence Cohen  06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have every right to challenge any opinion on WP policy will challenge them if I feel like it. Furthermore, your comments, IMHO, constitute a personal attack and I request you remove your previous comment accordingly.
 * I've put up with a lot of goading, personal attacks, and harassment over this issue. I at this time stand by my civil comments here. Lawrence Cohen  06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase your previous comment, "You can begin by shutting up if you disagree with me. The arbiters are smarter than you." That's the way I took it and it seems pretty uncivil. That is what I am responding to here. Some clarification might be in order if I am mistaken. Saying the same thing in nicer words doesn't change the intended meaning. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that us getting into these micro-dissections of each other's comments is of no help to anyone, the arbiters included. The arbiters are smarter than either of us on these matters, or they wouldn't have been elected to serve. But in general, my experience is that if people are able to stand by the truth of what they write, and the convictions behind them, there is no need to defend any and all challenge of them. If they're accurate, the arbs will accept them as such without having to be thoroughly convinced. Lawrence Cohen  18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mu (negative). Sure it sounds good but it is impractical.  Consensus is subjective.  What one person sees as consensus another does not see.  How can one follow a consensus one does not see? --Blue Tie (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to no accept this possible in this case, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Objecting to consensus
7) The proper way to object to a consensus is to get it changed, not to revert war or ignore it. If a consensus is claimed to be invalid under policy, the responsibility lies always with those objecting per policy to demonstrate and prove this.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. If consensus is claimed to be invalid under policy, which anyone can claim if they don't like the consensus, the requirement should be on them to demonstrate this--not the other way around. To do otherwise would be that phrase I see here and there: a troll's charter. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree There is no other way. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree If consensus is claimed it must be proven to exist. Until then, it is appropriate to question it or not believe it exists. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A slight variation on on what is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to no accept this possible in this case, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Personal attacks
8) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, obvious, but important here. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Completely. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring
9) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - 65%. Disagree about slow edit warring.  And for the most part, the 3-revert rule should be sufficient.   No one should be aggressively punished for "edit warring" but still staying in the 3rr rule.  Instead the page should be protected and the users work the situation out. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to no accept this possible in this case, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

POV pushing
10) The term POV-pushing has been coined to describe the aggressive promotion of a certain point of view in a manner which seeks to give that point of view undue weight particularly in article space.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, needed for context. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DIS-Agree Neutrality is a pov and should be pushed. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to not accept this possible in this case, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I could not find it used before. I still do not agree with it even if they agree.  NPOV is non-negotiable.--Blue Tie (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Minority viewpoints
11) Minority viewpoints, such as those held by a small number of sourced, reliably sourced authorities, relative to the popular majority in a given subject area, should not be elevated to any higher prominence or authority than the overriding base of consensus on that subject. See WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Very important to this case. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  01:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed Core problem here is weight / undue weight / fringe. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mu (negative) A reasonable position, but NOT applicable to this case, and instead is used as a stalking horse to attack the minority position which is not tiny or insignificant. I also disagree with the use of the term "consensus" here.  Instead the word "Majority" should be used although that would make it more clear about how consensus was being used to brutalize the minority view. .--Blue Tie (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to not accept this possible in this case, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He wasn't saying it was wrong; he was saying it wasn't applicable to this case. No one is going to argue that we should present tiny fringe positions as if they were significant minority views. However, in this case, the view "waterboarding is not torture" is not a fringe position, and for the ArbCom to label it as such would constitute a ruling on a controversial content matter. WaltonOne 14:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly within Arbcom's remit to clarify interpretation of policy, and how it should be handled, as that is policy not content. If there are repercussions that some minority of editors find distasteful, that is a separate matter. But some editors always end up unhappy with the outcome of an RFAR, as either one of us well might when this is over. Oh, and it's completely applicable to this case as one of it's cornerstones. Lawrence Cohen  14:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

WP:WEIGHT
12) Wikipedia articles nor editors should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Crucial for NPOV and to keep the minority or fringe viewpoints at bay on any and all articles, or else they'll overrun Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree - kinda. The wording bothers me and some degree of cherry picking.  But, I would prefer if it said "Wikipedia Articles should not attempt to represent all views equally. Minority views should get less attention than majority views and tiny minorities should not be represented at all, except to article devoted to those views"  Simpler formulation of the intent is easier for me to agree with.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Literal wording copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight in a copy/paste. If you have a problem with the policy, address at the policy page. The AC does not change or make policy. Lawrence Cohen  07:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite a literal quote. In the original they were separated and surrounded by context.--Blue Tie (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Banned users
13) Editing on behalf of banned users, or acting as proxy for them, is not acceptable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% true, but meatpuppetry must be proven first, not mere accusations. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)(User:BQZip01)
 * Worthless How do you prove meatpuppety? Two people may have the same views and honestly present them. WP:AGF.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Checkusers and community have ways to demonstrate and prove this, and this is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to not accept this possible in this case, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no way Checkuser can prove meatpuppetry. All that they can prove is that the editing is done by two people who are geographically close and edit similarly.  This is not the same as meat puppetry. --Blue Tie (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser the tool just looks at IPs. Checkusers the behavior also consider IPs, behavior, edits, public and private evidence. They do this all the time. You're simply wrong. They also don't reveal how they do it to not give abusers a way to know how they do it. Lawrence Cohen  14:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How weird. You say that I am simply wrong and then use examples that do not show that.  The fact that amateur detectives imagine that they can "read" people's minds through the internet is not proof that they actually can do so.  Besides, meat puppetry does not even require people to be in the same country, while two people of similar mentality might also be neighbors.  Checkuser MIGHT possibly indicate Sockpuppetry, but it cannot prove or even provide convincing evidence of meat puppetry unless you expand meatpuppetry way past its meaning. Meatpuppet allegations are essentially worthless.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the Checkusers and the private mail list. I can't link to any substantiating evidence since that sort of thing is all private; this is based on various conversations I've seen repeatedly on AN, ANI, RFARS, and a few RFCUs. It is what it is. The police certainly don't disclose all their surveillience methods of criminals. Lawrence Cohen  14:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are saying we should take it on faith, like ESP, then I would suggest that it is inappropriate for wikipedians to attempt Uri Geller tricks as a matter of routine policy. And I want to assert that Check User cannot identify meatpuppets. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is long standing policy and tradition. It would be inappropriate, wrong, and dangerous to Wikipedia to change this to suit your political needs. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Who's who
14) It is not necessary to prove conclusively that multiple accounts are operated by the same person in order to take action against them. Accounts that pursue the same goals in the same disruptive manner may be treated as a single account for arbitration purposes. From Free Republic RFAR.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DISAGREE. Horrible policy.  Guilt before proof.  Trial by ordeal.  Right out of the dark ages. And it leads to egregious witch hunts for sock puppets.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to not accept this proposition in this case is possible, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't find it in the link you provided. Even if it is true, I still think it is a horrible policy.  And... You know, repeatedly posting the same thing over and over again, is somewhat tendentious.   A simple ... "See this link" would be brief and serve the same point without looking so defensive. --Blue Tie (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not liking something doesn't make it tendentious; if my answer is going to be the same 15 times, I'm not going to write a basically unique answer 15 times as its a waste of time. "See this link", and this is how sockpuppets are routinely blocked. If you disagree with something I've proposed that is supported by historical precedent on Wikipedia or practice, or RFAR precedent, you need compelling policy-supported or precedent supported reasons why they shouldn't consider it. "Don't like it" is not worth anything, nor is saying "Bad policy". Lawrence Cohen  14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Restriction of disruptive editors
15) The editing of users who disrupt editing by edit warring, use of sockpuppets, personal attacks or incivility, or aggressive sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site. From Free Republic RFAR.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. But only with the "aggressively sustained point of view editing" part. I think that 3rr violations, personal attacks and harmful sockpuppetry should be the only reasons for banning or restricting. Edit Warring should result in locked articles.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to not accept this proposition in this case is possible, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree; if anything this is too weak. It continually amazes me that we not only tolerate such actions, but implicitly encourage them. Admins who try to rein in such behavior often find themselves in the hot seat. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What Raymond Arritt said. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  06:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proxy users
16) New users whose behavior matches that of a restricted user may be considered subject to the same restrictions regardless of whether they are actually the same person or another individual acting as a proxy for them. From Free Republic RFAR.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral may is the operative word, admins will need to consider this carefully case by case. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Horrible.  Guilt before proof.  Dark ages mentality. Badly colors things.  Violates WP:AGF and perhaps WP:BITE.
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to not accept this proposition in this case is possible, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole. Not on virtually all cases.  Once in a while it comes up.  And its a bad rule--Blue Tie (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Committee supported this 8-0 on 29 March 2007. Please detail under policy why its a bad rule and why they are wrong. The impetus is on you to demonstrate this. Please do so now, as supported by policy. Lawrence Cohen  14:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Under policy it is bad because it violates WP:AGF. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad. Sanctioning troublemakers isn't a violation of AGF. If you have a problem with how the Committee does business, post a finding that they don't know what they've been doing for years. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Advocacy and propaganda
17) What Wikipedia is not, a policy, forbids use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or propaganda. From Free Republic RFAR.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree but realize the subtle difference with #1. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Mu (negative) Good in theory. But with Advocacy journalism being used as Reliable Sourcing as a rule there is no way that wikipedia can avoid being a soapbox. So what I would say is that "Wikipedia strives to avoid being a soapbox by using the best sources and by keeping opinion commentary to a minimum.  Users are expected to keep comments pertinent to article content and writing.  Posting quotes on talk pages without discussing the way the quote pertains to the topic may be using wikipedia as a soapbox."  That gets specific to behaviors that should not be done and avoids trying to divine someone's intent.  --Blue Tie (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to not accept this proposition in this case is possible, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, repetitious chanting of what you think the ARBCOM needs to hear is a bit arrogant and is certainly annoying. --Blue Tie (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If a proposition has been accepted or widely supported by the Committee and community before on a dozen-plus cases related to various issues, and especially nationalism, what would make this Waterboarding RFAR do different that they may not be valid here? I copy/pasted this answer in several places because it's simply accurate and saves me time, and because my answer would be virtually the same in each instance. If you think the Arbitration Committee has been doing their business wrong the past four years, please demonstrate how. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen  14:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What might make it invalid here is that it was badly decided in the past. But that is a separate issue.  I was referring to your cut and paste responses to my comments.  They were needless.  I am offering my comments as requested.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the previous decisions and precedents were bad the community of respected editors wouldn't have supported them. They did, so that's settled. Take up problems with past decisions and precedent with the Committee directly in a seperate FOF. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia and politics
18) Political repercussions play no role in what Wikipedia publishes in policy-compliant articles, and is of no concern to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Crucially important. If Wikipedia had any reason to be concerned about political ramifications of what we post in articles, we couldn't be neutral. Since NPOV is our gold standard, anything that conflicts with it has to be killed on sight. That includes any nonsense about external political ramifications, for example, if the article calls "Waterboarding a form of torture". That is just one possible example. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone was actually using such arguments. Rather, I was contending that saying "waterboarding is a form of torture" is not NPOV. I was not in any way expressing concern with real-world political consequences. WaltonOne 18:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Immensely false, though rephrasing could definitely improve this and make me change my mind. What wikipedia publishes can affect the real world and needs to be handled accordingly. While I doubt this article is a specific instance where actual policital ramifications will result, WP:BLP and WP:NPA still apply. This phrasing seems to allow anyone to say anything and damn the consequences. That simply isn't true. This simply needs to be narrowed in scope instead of being a broad in scope. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * If an article is policy-compliant in all ways, but someone outside of Wikipedia objects for political reasons, or the material from multiple sources being compiled in one prominent place plays a role in external conflicts, how is that our concern? Lawrence Cohen  20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that...and you never specified "policy compliant in all ways." As an example, if someone is executed because of what someone puts up here, there is a concern for such ramifications IAW WP:BLP. All I am asking is to avoid sweeping generalizations. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've updated the wording here to add "policy compliant". If an article is compliant with all policies, including BLP, we have nothing to worry about. Your deleted comments mentioned someone could be "executed" because of Wikipedia. What do you mean by that? Lawrence Cohen  21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll admit a bit esoteric, but if you publish something here (such as a list of spies in Iran), that would be against what you originally stated. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And we wouldn't have something like that from an RS, since a RS that meets our standards wouldn't publish that. Hypothetical: But if the New York Times, the BBC, and all the Wire Services reported that Iranian TV was saying they have four American spies on the run under hot pursuit behind Iranian borders, and Iranian TV and all the sources named them, we would be within our bounds to safely report on this. Lawrence Cohen  23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You changed your original phrasing and then asked for an opinion based on the previous version. I responded and you used the modified version. This is tendentious editing at its finest to cut me up. I was not referring to something that met standards. We established that, and you ignored it in our discussion here. Please do not change what we are talking about in the middle of a discussion. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're getting so upset, and not assuming good faith. I corrected an error that you yourself pointed out, that the wording should cover policy-compliant articles. If an article meets any and all of our standards, we have nothing to fear of the outside world. It's quite safe. Lawrence Cohen  06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you alter the wording back and repost your modified version elsewhere, I have no reason with which I would not support it. Changing your original phrasing mid-discussion makes it difficult to follow what questions are being said. and violates WP:TALK (a guideline for talk pages which applies here) "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you...or have otherwise responded to your statement...Altering a comment after it's been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing." — BQZip01 —  talk 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree STRONGLY. Most statements made in this world have political ramifications somewhere, the fact that it has political ramifications does not in and of itself make it a political statement. Wiki is not responsible for how others run governments, armies or create policies. The mention of the dinosaurs could be considered a religious statement under this logic as it flies in the face of creationism. Requiring all statements to have no political implications, insinuations or similar would effectively ban writing. Lets go burn books? Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree A violation of WP:NPOV and the Wording is terrible.  It may be impossible to implement.  NPOV policy is established.  It is sufficient.  There is no way that politics can have no affect or consideration.  But NPOV can allow for two sides to things. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Manifestly false as anyone who's been around here for a while can attest. I've had my own administrative actions nullified for not being sensitive enough to PR implications. It's an appealing fantasy, though. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Attempts to play politics
19) Attempts to manipulate Wikipedia article content with a concern for external politics of any sort is unacceptable, and potentially disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Akin to inserting undue external influence on the encyclopedia, or harassing pressure on our private internal operations. Probably should be bannable if ongoing. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again simply too broad in scope. Anyone who has a political affiliation cannot edit Wikipedia because he/she sees something wrong? Rephrase accordingly. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Are you saying that altering, or attempting to alter article content with a regard for external political concerns is acceptable? If so, in what sorts of cases is this acceptable? Lawrence Cohen  20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See #18; WP:NPA
 * What does stopping someone from importing personal politics (POV pushing) have to do with our no personal attacks policy? Lawrence Cohen  21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See the original #18, please note it was modified.
 * Although I don't disagree with the principle as written, I don't see any example of it happening here; it's a straw man in this context. Neither I nor others have been trying to promote the Bush administration's agenda (indeed, although I'm a conservative, I'm not an uncritical admirer of Bush). This is about NPOV and how it should be applied, not about politics. WaltonOne 10:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't, but note the evidence page, and there have been numerous instances where editors have alluded to political, legal, or social ramifications that this article could spawn. All the individuals who have made such statements are the ones opposed to featuring torture in the lead. This is part of the proposals that if an article meets our policy standards, Wikipedia has no concerns for external political concerns. Lawrence Cohen  14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Useless Creep Just stick with NPOV. It is impossible to know WHY a person is making an edit but this policy requires a speculative insight into the editor's motives.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

World view
20) Wikipedia articles should cover a global, world view. If a subject covers multiple nations, for example, it may be a violation of NPOV to highlight one nation's perspective or viewpoint over others. WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. We don't write for one national audience's contentment, and never should. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Roughly two-thirds of the world's native speakers of English live in the United States. This is the English language Wikipedia. Neutral Good (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please cite your numbers. There are 250,000,000 citizens in the US. You're excluding all of Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, much of the Caribbean, and every nation in the world where English is taught as a second language (e.g., Europe and India, who together make the US population look tiny). This is a global project, not a national one. Lawrence Cohen  20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And 300,000,000 chinese speak english. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  14:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also not all american citizens speak english. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Please note use of the word may. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternate wording proposed below. This is one we'll need arbiters to decide on. Lawrence Cohen  22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Don't like wording. Historically some US editors have complained of it's heavy US coverage. Editors have then responded that we would really appreciate someone adding content related to other cases of waterboarding not involving the US. I am not aware of any issues in the past 2 years on this article of anyone removing NON-US content so I do not see this as an issue. Those that want it can add it. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The whereabouts of English speakers should not be used to justify bias or create a US centric view. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mu (negative) Mostly disagree in this case. I don't like the wording. I think it is too broad and sweeping. Some articles are of concern only to a specific location or group of people. And, weirdly, this article under debate might actually be one of them, and this proposal could be used to bring invalid perspectives as commentary to an article of virtually no concern outside of some group. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

World view
20.1) Wikipedia articles should cover a global, world view. If a subject covers multiple nations, for example, it is a violation of NPOV to highlight one nation's perspective or viewpoint over others. WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Alternate wording, changing "may be a violation" to "is a violation". Wikipedia and it's editors do not have the right to pick favorites. Lawrence Cohen  22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Highlight" is way too vague. So is "over others". We do not necessarily need equal footing for each nation. What is the opinion of Zimbabwe? India? Morrocco? Do they all get two paragraphs because the U.S. did. Your attempt at finding a middle ground is laudable, this simply isn't it. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should get just as much "screen time" if they have just as much sourcing and material. Why wouldn't they? The USA is just one nation of many, and not even the most populous. Lawrence Cohen  06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the problem. You make a rash statement and then alter it to include "if they have just as much sourcing and material." That isn't what you said earlier. If that is what you want to say, then state it in such a manner. This is why laws are so difficult to write. Intent needs to be specifically iterated, not impmlied. Furthermore, population does not necessarily equal influence or openness. Comparing the view of the US government and the people of the US versus the view of the Soviet Union and their people: the comparison isn't necessarily equal if you are using Soviet sources that state "our view is the people's view". A bit of a dramatic example, but I think it illustrates my point. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) There is nothing rash about my wording, because I very carefully weighed out all of these proposals. This 20.1 was an alternative addtion I put up based on your own comments. The US simply isn't the center of the Wikipedia universe, let alone the English language Wikipedia. From our own article: List of countries by English-speaking population.
 * United States: 251,388,301
 * Everyone else: 551,000,000 (rounding down heavily, just adding all the values that are 1,000,000+, and excluding all the -1,000,000 nations because I don't want to spreadsheet this--this is actually closer to 600+ million). The Soviet Union or any other nation has to get equal "screen time" if there is comparable volume of sourcing on a given topic. "population does not necessarily equal influence or openness" is utterly irrelevant. I reject any implied notion that the US or any other nation in any article on any matter is to be given any special anything. It would be like taking a shit on NPOV. Nationalism is wrong. Lawrence Cohen  19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unhappy with wording, but happy with goal, plus see me on #20. Deliberate highlighting is biased, however not adding content you do not know about is not. I'm sure there is waterboarding in Cameroon, but I don't know it, can;t verify it with OR, so I can't write about it. too broad Not even sure we need this proposal anyway. Extra can of worms being opened we don't really have to tackle for this. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a legal guide
21) If a Wikipedia states that something is something, it is doing based on secondary or tertiary sourcing from others only, per original research policies. Therefore, Wikipedia is not required to demonstrate a subject's legal status to make a sourced statement about it, especially considering that Wikipedia is read world-wide, and local laws vary.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Obvious. We don't care about legal interpretations of subject matter more than we do anything else sourced. We just report it. Absence of a legal definition, a point brought up in the waterboarding debates, is pointless to us too. We don't care about something we can't source to exist. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but I think you've entirely missed the point. Those on the "waterboarding is torture" side are backing their views up principally with reference to "expert" legal opinion, and claiming that such opinion is all that matters. In reality, since (as you correctly point out) laws vary between countries, and there is no universal definition of torture, we should not give special weight to legal opinion over political and public opinion. WaltonOne 18:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never proposed such a thing, myself. My stance since day one has been based on the weight of the sources overall for determining a definition of a thing. If you have 500 sources overall that say Subject is X, and 10 sources that say Subject is Y, that's a pretty clear case supporting per NPOV and weight that we say Subject is X, and make reference down-page or down in the article that a "minority disagrees". My point was that we don't owe any special allegiance to legal definitions as established by legal bodies, as some have alleged we do. Lawrence Cohen  18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All sources are not equal. The nature of politics is to get the most people to agree with you; that doesn't make your side exclusively right. Furthermore, I think this essay applies. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * This is one of the core problems, people thinking this is about politics and left vs. right, as your opening statement with partisan speech demonstrated. It's not about politics. Importing political values to Wikipedia articles is unacceptable. If we do that, what political value is more important? The most popular? The most populous? The most popular and populous in what country? From what time period? Lawrence Cohen  21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Politics and the law are intertwined (don't politicians make the laws?). I disagree immensely. This indeed is about politics and the law. If a legal position on this is that XYZ is PDQ then that should be noted. If other legal experts say XYZ is AOK, then there is a dispute. Acknowledging that dispute proves neither side "right" in court, but acknowledges the dispute. Additionally, perhaps you should re-read my comments above. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please answer: legal experts and definitions in what nation? What jurisdiction? Where the servers for Wikipedia live? Where the editor lives? Where the reader lives? Where the reader or editor's legal residence and citizenship is? Lawrence Cohen  22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worth pointing out that every time the legal issue of waterboarding has been considered by courts under U.S. or international law it's been found to be illegal torture. This holds massively more weight than the opinion of a few politicians and pundits in modern times. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please state exactly what you're disagreeing with here. Are you saying that opinions should hold more weight on Wikipedia than actual legal findings under both U.S. and international law? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they should hold more weight, but that a reasonable conflict/disagreement over whether it is "torture" exists. It is that simple. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But there is no conflict amongst actual legal findings - every time the legal issue of waterboarding has been considered by courts under U.S. or international law it's been found to be illegal torture. There is not a single actual court case where it has been found that waterboarding was not torture. Actual legal findings from Judges, who are acknowledged experts on the legal definitions of what constitutes torture under the law, hold vastly more weight than the opinions of a very small number of people regarding what might happen in some hypothetical future court case. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your quoted document starts with a quote from a prisoner who talks about "water cure", not waterboarding (though I admit the distinction may be simply the passage of time), though he is not a legal expert. The next quote states "Congress doesn’t have the power to “tie the President’s hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique....It’s the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. They can’t prevent the President from ordering torture.” John Yoo, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley." It then goes on for 42 pages. I have little desire to read the entire thing because it works from the conclusion that waterboarding (in all forms) is torture. Clearly there is reasonable dissent here. As an example, submitting someone to waterboarding for "days...even weeks" might be torture, but 30 seconds might not be. The same goes for loud music, playing it for 4 minutes is an annoyance. Not allowing anyone sleep because you are playing loud music for 2 months straight, is torture...especially if it is Celine Dion... My point is that a blanket statement that this is always torture is not even entirely backed by your own sources (and that particular source seems to have an anti-American agenda).  — BQZip01 —  talk 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evan Wallach is a U.S. Federal Judge and former Judge Advocate General in the U.S. military. He used to lecture Military Police on their obligations to prisoners regarding U.S. and international law. He has written extensively about the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and post-WWII prosecutions of Japanese war criminals. He is highly respected and has had articles published in the New York Times and many other reliable sources. The particular article I cited was published in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. It is the most reliable source we have on the topic of the legality of modern day waterboarding, and yet you dismiss it because you can't be bothered to read 42 pages, and you think he is "anti-American". I think that about sums up the standard of this "debate". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally missed that Judge Wallach of all people was called anti-American. A Vietnam veteran with multiple decorations, former JAG, Pentagon attorney, and reknowned legal authority... his bio, according to NEA.gov is here. If any one person from a legal standpoint is a definitive expert on the question everyone is fighting over, it's this judge, who is "one of the nation's most foremost experts on war crimes and the law of war, is a Federal Judge for the United States Court of International Trade." Lawrence Cohen  23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction here: I said it seems anti-American, though I probably should have said anti-Bush or anti-Bush administration to make it clear I was referring to the current U.S. government. That doesn't mean he is anti-American. No one is questioning his service, only his opinion. That you throw that in there is disingenuous. I was only stating that the paper starts with people who think it is not torture and the case law goes back to 1946, not 500 years. I do not dismiss it because I can't be bothered to read 42 pages, but because I believe it begins with a predetermined/biased premise. As a whole, it supports your point of view. Fine, I'm not disputing it. Move on. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Again, too sweeping.  If something is defined legally, then that legal definition is a secondary or tertiary source.    However, ARBCOM does not even need to consider this -- because the article in question, Waterboarding, does not have a legal definition. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

"The value of silence"
22) Wikipedia articles need not consider the lack, or non-existence, of potential sourced material when weighing NPOV.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. In Randy2063's question "What is the value of silence?" he asks what if Wikipedia can make a statement on the subject if there is a potential lack of sourcing to a degree. In regards to how so many governments are silent on statements about waterboarding: "I am saying that there is a huge gap in what we know, and we cannot use that gap to say that everyone calls it torture when so many are silent." The curious question for NPOV here, is, can we make a statement on something if not all possible authorities that exist have weighed in on the subject? Yes, we certainly can. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fair enough on your basic analysis, but stating that it is universally torture is misleading and that specific phrasing should be avoided. Stating that no government openly opposes XYZ is far more accurate. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * It definitely is not more accurate to say that. We are not entitled to say anything that is unsourced, per WP:V. If we have a source that says no government openly opposes XYZ it could be acceptable. Lawrence Cohen  20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that was your claim? "We cannot use that gap to say that everyone calls it torture when so many are silent." I assumed there was evidence that many nations are silent. If not, your argument is a straw man argument. If there is, it is verifiable. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Randy2063 said it. Per WP:V, WP:ATT and other standards, if something isn't sourced, we don't care about it. That is the point. There is no value to silence. Lawrence Cohen  21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't say "everyone says it" when everyone doesn't131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article never said everyone calls it torture; it called the method a form of torture based on the available sources with notes like [1][2] and so forth, and noted later that some minority groups disputed this in the United States after 9/11. If the article said, "Waterboarding is considered by everyone to be a form of torture," sure, we'd have to source that. But we never said that. Are you saying in any article without "universal" support by all human life, we can't ever definitively say x is y? If so, we have a lot of faulty school textbooks and decades of Encyclopedia Britannicas that need correcting. Lawrence Cohen  21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF and try not to be so condescending. You stated we can make a universal claim even if not everyone has stated agreement. I disagree with that. Nothing more. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stating something is x, with sourced footnotes indicating who said it, is not a universal claim. Saying something like your own example, everyone says x is x, would be a universal claim. Lawrence Cohen  22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "we can make a universal claim even if not everyone has stated agreement. I disagree with that." - Then you disagree with the Holocaust article; not only are there people in the world who haven't said that they agree that the Holocaust occurred, there are people that actually disagree. And yet the Wikipedia article still says that it occurred, despite your line of reasoning. 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop categorizing my comments in such a malicious, tendentious, and pointy way. I have said nothing of the kind. I didn't say that people disagreed with the Holocaust should be represented. They represent an insignificant minority (3-5% tops...which is usually within the margin of error.) 29% is not insignificant. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 29% of the sourced notable opinions in our case didn't exist. The last time I checked the waterboarding page, we had approximately 149~ sourced opinions (with the 5 new ones today) that said it was torture, and 4-8~ that said waterboarding may or may not be torture. Incorrect math aside (general polling of the general public isn't a notable opinion), thats an offtopic content issue for this forum. Lawrence Cohen  06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As User:Henrik points out below, there was a poll which found that "22 percent of American adults and 20 percent of high school students thought it was possible that the Holocaust never happened. Another 12 percent weren't certain whether it was possible or impossible." You are arguing that that Wikipedia can't contain a statement if "not everyone has stated agreement". Not everyone has stated agreement with the Holocaust article; it is an apt analogy and the precedent set on other Wikipedia articles is appropriate here. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This comparison of polls is laughable. The phrasing isn't the same. "Do you think ABC is DEF" is a far cry from "Do you think that it is possible that GHI is JKL?" 22 percent thought GHI may have thought about the technical capabilities of perpetuating a hoax or other things. They didn't ask about the definition of the Holocaust. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the phrasing, the sentiment is the same: the general public is not an expert source. There are many other subjects global warming, evolution, intelligent design, etc. where public opinion is split. This doesn't matter, because these Wikipedia articles don't give undue weight to non-expert opinion. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. I can't easily weigh the value of a tape that the CIA burned, though it does stink to the high heavens. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mu again. I do not think that wikipedia should normally refer to silence or draw conclusions from silence or even mention that there "is no comment", unless "there is no comment" is itself able to be sourced with cites. We should not say "no country disagrees with ...." unless we can cite that statement. Otherwise it is a violation of WP:OR--Blue Tie (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Fact vs generalization and NPOV
23) NPOV application does not require articles to state facts with qualifiers, such as "generally considered..." unless there is significant evidence presented that alternative viewpoints are widely accepted. There is never a need for qualifications on statements for any reason beyond sourced demonstration of a legitimate dispute on a scale proportionate to the scale of the article's subject matter.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The Earth article says the Earth is an oblate spheroid. It doesn't say, "Widely considered to be a spheroid" with a qualification due to some religious beliefs in the world. Global warming says what is, based on sourced evidence, what is known at this time as the accepted cause of global warming, with only the qualification that "individual" scientists disagree, later in the article. We don't qualify Oswald's status as our nation's worst assassin, despite dispute of this in minority and fringe circles. Apollo program says man walked on the moon, and does not qualify this in the lead in any way. Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations says a survey showed 5%-6% of Americans believed the landings were faked. That is on balance more of a ratio than our sources that dispute "waterboarding is torture". NPOV does not require qualifications on statements in articles unless a real need for a qualification is demonstrated. For an article on a subject demonstrating it's use over the centuries, we would need more than a handful of people in the past 3-5 years making contrary statements to have a "dispute" worthy of a qualifier. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those (the Earth article, Apollo landings etc.) are not good analogies IMO, because they are ultimately matters of scientific/historical fact; in such matters, what counts is informed expert opinion, backed up by evidence. In contrast, the question of what is and isn't torture isn't a factual question; it's a question of opinion. "Torture" is a subjective, emotive, non-factual term, just like "oppression" or "evil". It's established that we don't go around writing things like "X was an evil and oppressive leader"; we dispassionately recount the facts, and let the readers decide for themselves. So we shouldn't say "waterboarding is torture". At best, it would be acceptable to say "waterboarding probably qualifies as torture within the meaning of US and international law, and has been prosecuted as such in the past". WaltonOne 19:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "historical fact". Everything is subject to modern interpretation of various accounts. Your interpretation means that Wikipedia couldn't report the Holocaust as fact, because there are some people that dispute it. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no facts in history? just opinions? I think not. Your analogies about the Holocaust are becoming pointy... 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So you think that there are facts in history? Absolutely, 100% scientifically provable facts? How do you know the Holocaust occurred? Can you travel back in time and verify it? No - you must rely on historical records. Am I trying to make a point here? I'm making an analogy; by your own logic, you are claiming that Wikipedia can not report something as fact if a single person disagrees. My point (and yes, you are quite correct that I'm making a point here), is that Wikipedia already reports issues that some people disagree upon as fact, such as the Holocaust. Do I think that the Holocaust occurred - yes, absolutely. Do some people disagree with that conclusion? Yes, absolutely. Does this mean their point of view is relevant in a Wikipedia article? No. Do I think that you can say "The Khmer Rouge did not commit acts of torture, because torture is a 'question of opinion'"? No. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said there weren't facts in history. I asked you if that's what you meant. As for your assertion that science can't prove things, that is absolutely true. Science cannot prove I said "XYZ" at my graduation, but witnesses can. This is beside the point of this discussion though. You are being pointy to the "point" of being tendentious. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have accused me several times now of "being pointy" and have linked to WP:POINT. Either provide some evidence that I'm causing actual disruption to Wikipedia, and not engaged in a legitimate debate, or withdraw your uncivil accusations. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well:
 * CB: "There's no such thing as a 'historical fact'. Everything is subject to modern interpretation of various accounts."
 * BQ: "There are no facts in history? just opinions?"
 * CB: "So you think that there are facts in history? Absolutely, 100% scientifically provable facts?"
 * I never mentioned "scientifically provable facts", you did. I asked for clarification and you responded with something that hasn't been in the discussion. You also stated you were being pointy. All this amounts to tendentious editing and is inherently disruptive. Furthermore, this discussion is way off topic. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it was User:Walton_One who claimed that the other articles are irrelevant to this one because they're matters "of scientific/historical fact". I was responding to his post, and pointing out that we can never know anything is truly a fact; what we must do as Wikipedia editors is balance and weight the reliable sources that are available to us. Therefore:
 * You're claim that the issue wasn't already in the discussion is incorrect.
 * I didn't state that I was being pointy - I said that I had a point. You tried to link that to WP:POINT in order to accuse me of being disruptive to Wikipedia, which is a charge that I deny. If you seriously think that I've violated WP:POINT here, then please file an official complaint against me.
 * I note that if the discussion is off-topic, it is because you have made false allegations against me. Do you expect me to not respond, leaving the impression that they have any credibility?
 * Finally, read Fact; this was my whole point in in what I said about "historical facts" - "the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical perspective idealistic and impossible. "
 * Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are many matters of fact, in history, science etc., that we can never absolutely know for certain. "Did X happen", or questions of that nature. However, this doesn't prevent them being matters of fact; it's just that people disagree over what the truth is. In such circumstances, the published, peer-reviewed opinion of an expert carries more weight than public opinion, since an expert is likely to be able to get closer to the truth.
 * In contrast, a question such as "is X bad?" or "is Y oppressive?" is not a question on which there is any objective truth. It's a question of opinion, and so no person's opinion is more valuable than another's. There is a massive difference, for instance, between "did historical event X happen?", which is a question of fact (albeit one that we may not have a definitive answer to), and "was historical event X a good thing?" which has no objective, factual answer.
 * In this case, there are two separate questions. The first, 1) is whether waterboarding is a form of torture within the meaning of US and international law. This is a question of fact, albeit there is no definitive answer at present; however, if and when the Supreme Court considers it, there will be a definitive answer. In such a question, expert legal opinion is what we should examine, and carries more weight than public opinion. The second question, 2) is whether waterboarding is a form of "torture" in the ordinary, layman's sense of the word "torture". This is an opinion, and is substantively little different from asking "is waterboarding bad?" There is no objectively true answer to such a question, and it's therefore perfectly fine to take into account public opinion. Therefore, I propose that the answer to 1) should be that yes, it probably constitutes torture under US law (although a few legal experts have dissented); whereas we should not even attempt to answer 2), since to do so would be inherently POV. WaltonOne 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Walton One's original comment. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Disagree sorta. Generally, qualifiers should not be used and if removing them can help avoid a dispute, so much the better.  If the qualifier is the CAUSE of a dispute, it should not be used.  But if the use of a qualifier can help settle a dispute, then use it, if everyone can agree to a reasonable qualifier. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment: Actually, this is easier to handle than historic or scientific fact. "Torture" has legal and linguistic definitions. No information about real events is needed. To determine the factuality of "Water boarding is a form of torture" is not significantly different from determining the factuality of "a hammer is a kind of tool" or "a brick is a kind of human" (and very different from discussing "Stones are repelled by the Earth" or "human and monkeys are descended a common ancestor". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Recentism and NPOV in article content
24) "An encyclopedia should take a global and historical perspective, not the perspective of a certain political group in a certain country in a particular year."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Wording is from linked comment by User:Chris Bainbridge. On a topic that spans a long historical period of time (Examples: History of France, Abortion, Waterboarding), subject matter and opinion cited should not be weighted with a predominately modern view, in respect of NPOV. Per neutrality, an article should cover the scope of opinion on a subject over the years. Recent, new viewpoints and ideas are not entitled to carry additional weight under NPOV. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too broad of an interpretation. Slavery was acceptable for more than the past 4 millenea. Relatively recent events have shown just how wrong it is. Moreover, the recent past is likely the matter with which most people are interested and the most detail is available. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * The Wikipedia article doesn't say that slavery is bad, so that is a straw man argument. The question is: should we change the fundamental definition of an act that for hundreds of years has been described in a certain way, just to accommodate current political controversy within the United States. If an act has been described in hundreds of accounts as being a certain thing, over several centuries, and no new medical or scientific reason has been presented to change that definition, only a current political dispute within a certain country, should that change the definition of the act? Do we now need to say that the Khmer Rouge, which carried out the act of waterboarding on tens of thousands of people, did not actually commit acts of torture, just legitimate acts of interrogation, because it would inconvenience a certain political group within the present-day United States? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Wikipedia article doesn't say that slavery is bad" = my point exactly. Waterboarding shouldn't be described in such terms either. I am not saying that the Khmer rouge were justified or not, merely that a controversy exists. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is another of the key problems illustrated. A controversy amongst a very limited in scope minority group exists, in one nation, only since the 2001-2004 time frame. Waterboarding however is an article about a practice that sources indicate has gone on since the 1400s, and the Spanish Inquisition. Why would the modern, very recent debate in one nation take center state and prominence on such an article? It would be unbalanced and POV. Recentism, and a controversy of very limited scope and nature. Lawrence Cohen  22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the waterboarding article doesn't say that "waterboarding is bad".
 * Secondly: "I am not saying that the Khmer rouge were justified or not, merely that a controversy exists" - please point out any sources that say there was a controversy over whether waterboarding carried out by the Khmer Rouge was torture or not. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It says waterboarding is torture and this is intended to put it in a bad light.
 * You are taking what I said out of context. I said that there is controversy with regards to waterboarding. Whether the Khmer Rouge were justified or not is immaterial. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the controversy with regards to Khmer Rouge waterboarding? The controversy you're talking about is limited to present day United States politics. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you feel people are trying to put waterboarding in a bad light by labeling it a form of torture, based on 149 notable viewpoints? Lawrence Cohen  07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To use most people are interested and the most detail is available as a basis for basic sourcing contradicts with our policies. Recent, modern thought is not automatically entitled to enhanced weight or value. Lawrence Cohen  20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said it should have enhanced weight or value, but that a controversy exists is a fact, not an opinion. That X is Y (in this case) is an opinion, not fact. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By focusing heavily on the modern US controversy, and allowing the opinions of a small group of modern Americans to color the entire historical debate and story of Waterboarding, which predates the existence of the United States, we are indeed creating extra value for people arguing a footnote in modern history. This is incompatible with NPOV, and another example of why we need clarification from the Arbs on the very wide array of NPOV related statements in this workshop.  Lawrence Cohen  22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is focusing heavily on anything. Those who want no mention of controversy seem to want no mention of it whatsoever. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, many of us (myself included) want to mention it with the regional, fringe/minority weight it is according the United States subsection of the article. The controversy, being limited to a very specific set of political circumstances in one lone nation out of 180+ other sovereign nations, however, should have a prominent weight or value in the article lead by any means. It would be very unbalanced. The article is about waterboarding, the general practice. Lawrence Cohen  07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you just pointed out that you think it is a fringe opinion. You also think it deserves to be included (contradicting WP:FRINGE). Either it deserves to be included or it doesn't. You can't include it and intentionally de-emphasize it by bypassing its conclusions in the opening sentence. Again, simply because 1 nation opposes it doesn't mean the other 179 nations disagree (this implication is a logical fallacy). — BQZip01 —  talk 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Including a small, appropriate sized reference to the controversy off of the lead is entirely appropriate, the same way that other topics handle fringe views. Fringe viewpoints do not have wide acceptance. The alleged US view is a fringe view. We need to treat the US administration here the same way we treat any other fringe viewpoint, in any other article: relegate them to less prominent place in the page, and don't let the fringe view dominate the article. It's the same way we handle pseudoscience, medical quackery, and conspiracy theories. The wild or generally unsupported viewpoints get put down in prominence and value accordingly. Your claim of a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy: "Wikipedia articles need not consider the lack, or non-existence, of potential sourced material when weighing NPOV.". I have yet to see a single article that weighs the non-existence of sourced material or evidence with any value. If there some, please show us, so that we can fix them accordingly. Lawrence Cohen  19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BIAS has some interesting things to say on this topic. Note the bullet points on how torture articles focus on "the relatively few (but well documented) cases of abuse in Israel, the United Kingdom, United States, conducted during their foreign wars and incursions" and "Recentism: Current events (especially those occurring in developed, English-speaking nations) often attract attention from Wikipedians, and are edited out of proportion with their significance." Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There is no policy on "recentism".  This is policy creep.  Impossible to avoid "recentism" and might not be a good thing to require it.  We are all born "recently" and read (and cite) sources written "recently" by writers who were also born "recently".  We have no choice in focusing on recent things and having a recent perspective. And over time, knowledge increases and improves.  The Copernican Universe gave way to more modern concepts, and should not get any consideration in articles descriptive of the structure of the solar system.--Blue Tie (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is self-contained
25) NPOV is an internal construct of Wikipedia. NPOV and article content is not to be swayed by any theoretical or alleged repercussions, if any, that a article which is compliant with our standards and policies may have on the world outside of Wikipedia, or in how the outside world may perceive the subject of a Wikipedia article because of enforcement of NPOV or other policies. See Depictions of Muhammad.

Note: (In other words, if an article is fine by our internal guidelines, policies, and standards, we simply don't care about theoretical social or other repercussions the article content may have outside of Wikipedia. Please suggest better wording if mine is unclear, this one was hard to write.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Critical point. On rereading the various talk pages, I have a feeling this is a major factor, if not the major factor. Wikipedia is the first hit for both water boarding and waterboarding on Google. Wikipedia is considered an authoritative source by many, many people. If you look up water boarding, you will end up on our article. Our article, based on sourcing and lots of slow deliberation, was modified to say "Waterboarding is a form of torture" over time in it's lead as the primary description. It is based on sourcing and outside views of sources a form of torture, just as the rack, Denailing, the iron maiden, and crushing by elephant are all forms of torture. No one in academia or in general really disputes this, except for a very, very small number of people in the United States, and all of them after the year 2001. If people come here, and read the sourced entry that says, "Waterboarding is torture," could it sway outside opinion in the US or world? Maybe, maybe not. I personally don't care. I don't think we have any reason under policy to do so either as a project. Its of no concern to Wikipedia. Based on the partisan, political reasonings people seem to advocate for elevating the stature of the United States opinion on this subject, I think this point, and the "Editors proposed violating NPOV" FOF, are the core of this whole case. Some want to alter the wording to alter public perception, for possibly noble causes; some want to be rigidly NPOV, irregardless of external consequences outside of Wikipedia, no matter how good or bad they may be. I propose that our only duty is to create the best damn articles possible--what people do with them after reading them, in their minds, hearts, or wherever: we don't care. Who is right? Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose See #18 plus your dismissal of everyone outside academia and "in general" (I have no idea who you mean by that) violates WP:NPA. It has been conclusively demonstrated that there is a sizable part of the population that agrees that it is not "torture". Simply dismissing them as unintelligent reeks of elitism. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * As asked above, in the other principle: if an article is compliant with our internal standards, but the availability of sourced information causes political discord in the minds of some outside of this website, why is it our concern? Lawrence Cohen  20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, on your statement, "Simply dismissing them as unintelligent reeks of elitism," not at all. We don't weigh public opinion polls as factual sourced evidence in the way you're intending. The general public is not a reliable source. Lawrence Cohen  22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No point in rehashing things. See #18. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Critical point with a bearing far belong this article, else where do you draw the line? Wiki and other online, Wiki and other editors in the US, Wiki and governmental implications. Has to be. I would like to see this forked to WP policy by bureaucrats and worded and constructed carefully over time. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Agree?. The statement is patently false. We must be concerned about legal conditions outside of the project, hence Oversighting.  But as a rule in article writing, the only rules that pertain should be wikipedia rules.  If that is what is meant we should just say: Only wikipedia rules apply here and avoid the mumbo jumbo above. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Agree (although it could be formulated better). Wikipedia's goal is to be a useful repository of human knowledge. If this knowledge is inconvenient, embarrassing, unwanted, toppling governments,... is not our concern. We operate on the basic assumption that overall, its better to be well-informed than comfortably stupid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and national or geographic origin
26) NPOV does not allow that particular viewpoints or sources be devalued based in any part on national or geographic origin. See also.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed per Walton One, excellent idea. Lawrence Cohen  20:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think anyone will dispute this as a principle. WaltonOne 10:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, I'm not so sure for now but open to persuasion. Have not been happy with the militancy of some US editors here. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree I especially like the wording here. It denies the negative.  It does not try to affirm a positive. I like that form for this subject. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Single-purpose accounts
27) Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts. From Transnistria RFAR.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, from Transnistria RFAR, where it passed 10-0. Lawrence Cohen  00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, based on wording only, not concept. I think a SPA or other user should be treated the same, should either a SPA or other become troublesome, both can be banned, or topic banned and probated. I am not persuaded as to why the existing rules can't handle this? Open to hearing more.Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I do not think that SPA's deserve any special negative attention. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standardly supported by the Arbitration Committee on virtually all cases. For examples, please review the cases detailed and linked here. This is very common and historically has wide acceptence by the Committee, long established by precedent. For the Committee to not accept this proposition in this case is possible, but you would need to present a compelling policy based reason why not to. Lawrence Cohen  07:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is a sound principle. Single purpose accounts actively hamper attempts by good editors of whatever POV to establish consensus. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationalistic editing or advocacy is problematic
28) Based on a long history of conflict on Wikipedia involving nationalistic editing, attempting to alter article content with a nationalistic POV of any sort is likely incompatible with NPOV and often becomes disruptive based on the demonstrated history of Wikipedia. Evidence: Dbachmann (Afrocentric/Indian); Hkelkar 2 (Indo-Pak reloaded); TinMing (Taiwan); Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram (Taiwan); Transnistria; Zeq-Zero0000 (Arab-Israeli); Mudaliar-Venki123 (Sri Lankan); E104421-Tajik (Perso-Turkic); Freedom skies (Indian); Occupation of Latvia; India-Pakistan; Armenia-Azerbaijan; Piotrus-Ghirla (Polish/Russian); Hkelkar (Indo-Pak) ; Kven (Kven) ; Ulritz (German/Dutch); GreekWarrior; Kosovo; Zeq (Arab-Israeli); AndriyK (Ukrainian); Stereotek (Turkish); Rajput (Indian); Antifinnugor (Hungarian); IZAK (Israeli); The Troubles (Northern Ireland); Allegations of apartheid (Israel); Dalmatia (More Yugoslavia); Digwuren (Estonia); Bharatveer (India).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Please note the about-to-close Israel/Palestine case; you may wish to redraft this to mesh with the working group. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, refer to evidence. I never realized how disruptive all the nationalistic editors end up being until I saw this last night. Lawrence Cohen  19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that at least two of the most vocal editors on the "torture is disputed" side of this argument are either actively serving, or have served, in the United States military. There is nothing wrong with this, and they are entitled to have their say. But it does present some conflict of interest when the Commander-in-Chief of that military has authorised waterboarding on prisoners, and the point of view they represent would certainly fit with most definitions of nationalism ("loyalty and devotion to a nation", "Pride in one’s country or culture, often excessive in nature", "Close identification with the concerns of a particular country or nation" etc.) Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest under WP:COI is something I hadn't considered. Are active servicemen legally allowed to take stances counter to or in critical nature to the Presidency? If not, that could represent a COI (I have no idea--just tossing it out for consideration). Lawrence Cohen  16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You could research that, but the slam is cheap and easy to make. The political motivations of those on the "is torture" side have rarely seemed more obvious. Ah well ... O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away" ... htom (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just posited the obvious and applicable question under policy; I wasn't the one who brought it up. COI editing applies to anyone, including the US military, you, and I. Lawrence Cohen  16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nationalism, in this sense, is the promotion of a nation, not a particular political party. There are nationalists of all types: republican, democrat, socialist, communist, etc. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the slam against ADHD, either. I used to publicly wish that those who took shots at those with "invisible" handicaps be inflicted with them, as I was with epilepsy, but I've since realized that they already do, and are in much worse shape than I ever was. htom (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't alter the indentation of my posts, it will confuse the context of the discussion. I have no idea how ADHD relates to this discussion. My post above is about nationalism and politics. I did not mention ADHD in any way, shape or form. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor did I mention ADHD. Where did that come from? Lawrence Cohen  17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (conflict)Sorry about the indent; I thought we were supposed to, to mark different posters. Neither of you appear to have read the essay Lawrence approvingly linked to. "...psychologically probably related, the cranky (nerdy, ADHD) mind caught in pseudoscience ...." Is it more AGF to assume that you read and agreed, that you read and ignored, or that you didn't read at all? Ignored, I suppose. htom (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am totally lost. Where on Earth did I link an essay that said that? The Dbachmann outline of the nationalistic cases? I linked that since it was simply a list of the various RFAR cases that revolved around nationalism, illustrating their disruptive nature, and the disruptive nature that nationalistic behavior has here. Lawrence Cohen  18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see there was an essay comment upthread on that page I had linked. I'm sorry if that was offensive, it was obviously not my intent, as I would have had no way of knowing you had ADHD. I've just taken the raw list and posted it here as supporting evidence in the statment instead. Lawrence Cohen  18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eighteen hours after I make this post I read a slam about ADHD. What are the odds? (OK, that's how to do a diff on something I wrote.) htom (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering I've never looked at your contribution history before this very moment, and given that that essay page I found by Googling for Wikipedia plus arbitration plus nationalism has been there for quite some time, a coincidence. Again, I'm sorry if an unrelated passage of text on that large page was offensive (note that I linked specifically to a section far down page, here), a coincidence. Why would I propose a entire section here to slam an editor who was only barely involved in the conflicts on the waterboarding page, over ADHD of all things, by happening to link to an essay chronicling nationalism in RFAR that also had a lone off-color comment about ADHD? Again, I'm sorry, but please to AGF. To assume this was some sort of attack is pretty much completely ignoring AGF and a stretch at that, especially as much of this case does revolve squarely around nationalistic editing. Lawrence Cohen  19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My disgust is aimed at the writer, not either of you. Please excuse my touch of paranoia; with all of the talking about checking on other users, I was feeling left out, and than that happened. I really did think that you probably had not read that paragraph, or at least I hoped you hadn't, or didn't know I was adult ADD. The coincidence is beyond bizarre, though! htom (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "The coincidence is beyond bizarre, though!"
 * Pretty much sums up 99% of my waterboarding related interactions since the day Alison and I both found it from the initial 100-edit IP revert war. :) Lawrence Cohen  19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (To Lawrence) I don't know about the US military, but as a member of the Officers Training Corps I'm technically part of the British Army, and I can assure you that it doesn't give me a COI, nor am I prohibited from criticising the government (indeed I support the main opposition party). I don't know if this is the case for more senior people (I'm only an Officer Cadet), but AFAIK the duty of senior generals etc. is to avoid taking an overt political stance, rather than supporting the government's agenda. WaltonOne 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is for clarification only, but, yes, I am a member of the US Armed Forces (specifically as an officer in the Air Force). There is only a conflict of interest if I am trying to actively promote something with which I am involved or interested and which is NPOV. Quoting from WP:COI "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." The matter of debate here revolves around whether "waterboarding is torture" is accurate or misleading with regards to NPOV as the status of what a "tiny" minority is and whether this group is "tiny" or significant and how to handle such opinions. This academic argument falls squarely in the arena of Wikipedia policy. As such, there is no COI unless someone states otherwise (Such as "I'm doing this because I want to do waterboarding in the future with the U.S. government") Anything else speculating on someone motives is, well, speculation. Furthermore, any opinion I espouse here is my own unless I state otherwise. Americans live in a free country and I am allowed to disagree with the Commander-in-Chief, but not in a capacity as an Air Force officer.
 * It should be noted that the President (and please note my specific choice of words here) apparently authorized the waterboarding of some detainees. However, there is an order published by the Secretary of Defense which explicitly states that DoD personnel are prohibited from waterboarding a prisoner. As such, any action of waterboarding would be a court-martial offense. The people that did the waterboarding for the U.S. were apparently CIA, not U.S. military. As such, the Commander-in-Chief didn't make such an authorization, the President did. I realize that is seriously splitting hairs and no offense is intended. My point is to clarify positions and roles and, while the same person authorized an action, they did not authorize it for the military. To link the two could be misleading. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose As for the statement above, the major problem I see is that it singles out a group and anyone's opinions can simply be dismissed as "nationalistic" if someone disagrees. Additionally, it is already policy where NPOV trumps POV, nationalistic views notwithstanding. Rehashing it will likely only fan the flames and make the situation worse, not better. In short, it already is covered in NPOV and doesn't need additional ArbCom rulings. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Self evident. Common sense by admins and users can interpret this correctly. This is why I do not edit anything to do with The North, or the British Army. I'm Irish, and I do have nationalist views on the matter - it would turn to s*** if I did. Inertia Tensor (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support-ish NPOV is a central policy, violating it on "nationalistic" grounds is no better or worse than violating it for religious, political, racial or "just for the hell of it" grounds. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  06:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support-kinda The only statement here is that certain behavior is problematic.  Saying that is so easily true of anything.  Yellow lampshades are problematic.  How do you disagree?  Not sure this is a meaningful statement. But it might be used to stomp someone. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Massive edit warring and incivility
1) There was incredibly intense edit warring on Waterboarding, especially over whether or not the practice can be called "torture" per NPOV and sourcing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Painfully obvious. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree How can this not be disputed. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Clear as day. Motives can be argued, and will be, but not the fact. Inertia Tensor (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree It never seemed all that bad to me.  I thought it was blown out of proportion.  But I may refactor this comment after some research on it. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only required research, anything else is irrelevant opinion: "Sheer mayhem by anon editors", protected 2 November 2007, 6 November 2007, 25 November 2007, 24 December 2007, 9 January 2008, and 10 January 2008. Lawrence Cohen  07:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good Grief Lawrence. Do you see what you are doing?  You are actually denegrating my honest efforts on an Arbcom page.  --Blue Tie (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You said you needed to do more research, and I provided a link to the permanent record and evidence of edit warring (the only immutable record, actually). How is doing that denegrating your work? I answered your query with the most direct evidence possible. Lawrence Cohen  14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are trying to define for me what research I should conduct... saying that your idea of the research is the only thing that matters. How arrogant!--Blue Tie (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to get me to laugh? The log by respected administrators stating there was an edit war is immutable and impossible to disprove. There was an edit war. Lots of them. Deal with it. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree - A perusal of the archives shows this to be quite clear. Badagnani (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Editors proposed violating NPOV
2) 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," "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?"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is neither helpful nor fair. Editors are entitled to disagree in good faith about what constitutes an NPOV view. For the ArbCom to rule that certain editors had "proposed violating NPOV" would require them to rule on content, which they cannot do. I have no opinion as to most of your other submissions, but this one is unacceptable. WaltonOne 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This a FOF based on the statements. It's against policy to disregard foreign sources, as that would be a violation of NPOV--positing that we should disregard sources not from the United States is calling then for violating NPOV. That's not a content matter, since we can't disregard "foreign opinion", so calling for disregarding it is a behavioral and social issue. Either way, what is "foreign"? We have editors from many nations and continents here. To disenfranchise whole countries in favor of another's viewpoints is the height of an NPOV violation. Lawrence Cohen  17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not disregard non-US opinion; however, that's substantially a content issue. To post it as a behavioural FOF like this makes it look as if the editor making that comment had done something wrong in giving their opinions, which isn't the case; he gave a civil and reasoned, though incorrect, view. The second of the two diffs provided is simply arguing that certain sources should not be over-relied on because their authors have displayed evidence of political bias. Without having reviewed the sources, which I haven't done, I can't comment on whether he's right or wrong, but again, there is no behavioural and social issue in him making that comment. (His edit-warring certainly is a behavioural issue, but I'm staying out of that side of the debate.) WaltonOne 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I strongly disagree that this is a content issue--it's a policy one, of whether excluding or minimizing sourcing based on nation of origin is acceptable under NPOV, which I contend it never is. To advocate nationalism is disruptive. Lawrence Cohen  18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree that devaluing sources based on nation of origin is not in accordance with NPOV as I understand it, and I would have no objection to this being stated as a principle (e.g. in the form "NPOV does not allow particular viewpoints to be devalued based solely on national origin"). However, as a finding of fact, it is unhelpful, because the above diffs are not disruptive. We don't sanction editors, or label them as disruptive, for expressing an opinion or for advocating a novel (and in this case incorrect) interpretation of policy. Regardless of what else those two editors may have done, the diffs above are not examples of disruption. Simply put: being wrong is not in itself disruptive. WaltonOne 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Walton One 131.44.121.252 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Agree. Obvious, cherry picking given the fact that the fringe is almost exclusively US based. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly DISAGREE.  Everyone says everyone else violates NPOV by what they fail to consider.  I could stack this deck huge on the page with all the violations of NPOV by everyone on that finding.  Its unworkable and not useful. The talk page is where discussion of article content and sources should be made.  If a person errs, but does not stick with that point, it should not be held against them. Censoring the talk page should be considered a bad thing and this is censoring the talk page. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

User:BryanFromPalatine never left Wikipedia after being banned
3) Based on available evidence, it is probable to certain that User:BryanFromPalatine, banned on arbitration here, never left Wikipedia after his enforced removal following the Free Republic RFAR, and that he himself or direct meatpuppets acting for him are User:Neutral Good, User:PennState21, User:Harry Lives!, User:Shibumi2, 209.221.240.193, 68.29.174.61, 70.9.150.106, 68.31.220.221 and any other related Sprint Wireless IPs from the same geographic area that all show a very common interest and positioning in the same articles (Waterboarding and Free Republic) are operating in tandem.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please review my full evidence as presented. These IPs all circulate around locations such as Palatine, Elmhurst, and Hoffman Estates Illinois, any of the three being no more than 19 miles from each other--10 to 15 minutes' drive. What are the odds of all these random, unrelated, with no connection to each other people from this one suburban corner of Illinois all happening to arrive on a page that is a Conservative hotbed, and one of them just happens to be the Checkuser-confirmed IP address (go look at the old Checkuser Request--they confirmed 209 was this BryanFromPalatine fellow), all at the same time? Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed. The "209" IP editor hasn't edited the Free Republic article or its Talk page, nor have I. Based on a review of his User Talk page, neither he nor I want anything to do with that article. Freepers are homophobic neanderthals. I would have an immediate COI editing that article because I am diametrically opposed to them. As the "209" editor has pointed out, 17,000 fellow employees share his corporate IP address; about 13 million people live in Illinois; about 55 million people use Sprint wireless accounts; and Chicago and its suburbs are the communications hub of the entire Midwestern United States, meaning that close to 100 million Internet users have IP addresses resolving to that area. This evidence is so circumstantial that it's laughable. Neutral Good (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Your numbers are drawn from whole cloth and without citation or support, I've merely presented all this evidence that does appear that Brian never left. Did you read each link and follow all the evidence? The fact that 209.221.240.193 was removing tags on random users and IPs that were tagged as socks of Bryan? Why would an IP address do such a strange behavior, were it not Bryan? Add in that all these IPs and users seem to praise each other with the same language; all have the same interests, and all geolocate to a 15 square mile radius out in the suburbs of Chicago: coincidence, maybe, but the coincidences start to pile up enough, and you start to have patterns that aren't coincidences at all. There are many Checkusers on the AC. If the evidence has merit, it will stand. If not, not, and I'll drop it. How many coincidences does it take before fact emerges? Lawrence Cohen  20:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, look at this this complete edit history of the IP. Search the text for "Free Republic", and your claim the IP never touched the article falls apart. He was all over it. Lawrence Cohen  20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're splitting the hairs, Lawrence. The CURRENT "209" IP editor never edited Free Republic or its Talk page. He has only been participating in Talk:Waterboarding since December and during that period, there have been zero edits of Free Republic or its Talk page from the "209" IP address. For that reason, your argument collapses. Neutral Good (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have no way to demonstrably prove what you're saying, unfortunately--we have no way of knowing if this IP has other accounts, or what they are doing, or if the IP is even one person or ten. My evidence is simple the available non-Check User information we have, all from public records here. Your evidence is all opinion. That's why I presented this, for the various Check Users here to review it. Lawrence Cohen  00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An experienced, trusted Checkuser admin named Alison took one look at this and said, "." Neutral Good (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This deserves a look, but is the preserve of Arbs / admins. They have been notified and I assume will do their work quietly on the lot of us :-) Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IP Evidence is poor. The evidence in this stuff is weak. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * discussion here is getting rather heated. This may be a strong issue, and the possible consequences pretty severe, but please keep a level head when conversing: anything to the contrary simply serves to disrupt the page. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

User:Neutral Good is a single purpose account
4) Based on his own admissions and contributions, Neutral Good is an SPA that focuses just on the Waterboarding issue. The user began performing minor edits to articles of politicians after the start of this arbitration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with being a single purpose account. Neutral Good (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, no need for motion. I consider him an extraordinarily disruptive editor, who has shown no interest in working with others, and has baited most of us (successfully in many case), however I do not see an issue with the SPA. Yes, he may have tried to broaden the account, but I do not see that as being the issue. Whether it is SPA or not should not detract from the ability of admins to act on its behaviour. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree but so what? SPA is not a violation of anything. Unless we are going to make it a violation in this ARBCOM case, and then I must ask, what about Ex Post Facto considerations? --Blue Tie (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

User:Neutral Good has been a disruptive presence
5) Based on evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to be a constructive presence. The only thing I've really disrupted is an attempt to WP:OWN the article by people who are violating WP:NPOV. Neutral Good (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please post evidence of these accusations. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen  00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Exceptionally disruptive, and has baited many others including myself into incivility. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. But much of the disruption was the fact that people seemed to want to target him and easily took offense. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no real opinion on this. To be honest, I don't understand why the ArbCom took this case at all. There are two separate issues here. One is whether waterboarding should be described as torture in the lead of the article; this is a content issue, which ArbCom cannot and will not decide. The other is whether Neutral Good and/or the 209 IP are disruptive editors and/or sockpuppets of a banned disruptive editor; that is a conduct issue, and I don't see why it needs resolution by ArbCom. If Neutral Good is a "disruptive editor" and you think he should be banned, then ANI is the right place to discuss it. It's completely separate from the content issues involved, where there is disagreement amongst experienced good-faith editors. WaltonOne 00:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

User:Neutral Good is a sock or meatpuppet of User:BryanFromPalatine
6) Per supplied Evidence, this user is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the banned User:BryanFromPalatine. Per standard Arbcom precedents sanctions on banned users apply to those working for banned users. As such, this user is either blocked as sock/meatpuppets of BryanFromPalatine, or share his same indefinite ban.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed. See argument above. I have nothing in common with the Freepers. I'm diametrically opposed to them. They're homophobic neanderthals, and I would never even consider editing the Free Republic article or its Talk page. Since that was the main focus of Bryan/Dean and since he never edited Waterboarding, Lawrence's entire case collapses. Neutral Good (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This overlooks that BryanFromPalatine, using a variety of sockpuppets as detailed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine, moved all over a wide array of conservative topics, pressing a distinct POV--the same as the 209 IP, the Bob IPs, and yourself are doing. Stacking coincidences keep dropping the odds of them being coincidences further. He often migrated, it appears, to whatever the hot-button political topic of the day was, beyond Free Republic. Waterboarding besides the War is the hot topic today. Lawrence Cohen  00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already survived two Checkusers and both came back "❌." No Wikipedia editor except me has ever used this IP address. If another editor had used this address, it would have been turned up in one of those Checkusers. You haven't addressed trhe fact that neither I nor the "209" IP editor has edited the Free Republic article or its Talk page. Freepers are scum, and review of his User Talk page confirms that the "209" IP editor agrees that Freepers are scum. A review of the alleged sockmaster's edits, as well as the edits of "Dino" and his other RFCU-confirmed socks, proves that there's no way he could have stayed away from that article, and he defended Freepers ferociously. Without fail. Without exception. He always went back to that article, and he always defended the Freepers. Your case has collapsed. Neutral Good (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a disruptive presence, that appears to be unwilling to read the link I gave you before. Look again:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=5000&contribs=user&target=209.221.240.193
 * Do you not see the Free Republic edits there? Declined does not mean vindicated, also. Lawrence Cohen  06:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you see any edits at all of the Free Republic article, or its related pages, from my account or my IP address? You don't. Like the "209" IP editor, I believe Freepers are a plague on the Internet. Your case against me, like your case against the "209" IP editor, is a failure for that reason alone. Neutral Good (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Very weakly, I'd rather leave this to the pros. But where there is smoke... he has accused others, including me of all sorts of puppetry. As a child I remember pointing a police car out to my dad, he remarked, you only notice them if you are guilty of something. I would be interested in knowing who used the word puppet first? Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not true. Weak weak evidence.  But this belief on the part of Lawrence Cohen and repeated accusations probably led to some of the disruption on the page. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

User:Shibumi2 is a sock or meatpuppet of User:BryanFromPalatine
7) Per supplied Evidence, this user is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the banned User:BryanFromPalatine. Per standard Arbcom precedents sanctions on banned users apply to those working for banned users. As such, this user is either blocked as sock/meatpuppets of BryanFromPalatine, or share his same indefinite ban.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed. Shibumi2's problem is that he has a shared IP. He can't control what other users of that IP are doing. The Checkuser admin who produced the ✅ finding, which is the cornerstone of Lawrence's argument, personally unblocked Shibumi2. In that Checkuser case, Shibumi2 hadn't even been named as a party, indicating that even Lawrence didn't find anything wrong with Shibumi2's editing pattern. I believe ArbCom's review of Shibumi2's editing pattern will likewise produce a finding that Shibumi2 is not a sock or meatpuppet of BryanFromPalatine. My review of Shibumi2's editing at Free Republic indicates no similarity with BryanFromPalatine, who was trying to whitewash the article. Neutral Good (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was rather shocked when I saw on the GooseCreek RFCU that Alison had named Shibumi2 as implicit in the sockpuppeteering, and that was in fact what led me to begin suspecting that something deeper was going on. When the patterns of the IP contributions began to sort of swirl about with language similar to what I saw BryanFromPalatine using in the Free Republic RFAR, and that many of these IP ranges and Shibumi2 all contributed there, and that the IPs also "pumped" up Shibumi2 as a model editor despite English "obviously being his second language," the very sorts of wording you yourself have used in places, and on the now deleted Shibumi2 RFA that you initiated, I began to look more and more. When Black Kite alluded to suspicians that the IPs all seemed to come from the same basic area, I poked more, and saw that they all came from BryanFromPalatine's literal neighborhood. Like I said, coincidences are one thing, and aside from that brief archiving misunderstanding I never had a major problem with Shibumi2, but at some point the incidental coincidences stack to where the card house won't seem to fall over. Lawrence Cohen  23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that Shibumi2 was unblocked by the checkuser (Alison) does not mean the checkuser result was incorrect or vindication for Shibumi2, per supplied evidence. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I left Alison a note, about all this, in case she wanted to weigh in here as the expert CU that worked on the original case. Lawrence Cohen  23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Ok, I was the checkuser that ran the GooseCreek case and yes, I was surprised that Shibumi2 was implicated by the checkuser data but it was pretty incontrovertible from the evidence. Having entered communication with Shibumi2, I unblocked his account largely per WP:AGF and per the blocking policy as I felt he had both learned a lesson from this and was unlikely to re-offend. I do not accept, however, that he was not involved in sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry at best - the evidence was stacked against him and his emails didn't really go towards explaining things. I also had another checkuser do a quick check and their findings tallied with mine. As checkuser data is private information, I cannot go into detail here, though I can provide my findings directly to the Arbitration Committee if required. In my unblocking mail to Shibumi2, I did say the following, "At this point, I am willing to unblock your account in good faith and allow you to resume editing. However, I will *not* state in your unblock message that you are innocent, other than to state that I'm unblocking per email agreement and per WP:AGF.". Shibumi2 agreed to this and was subsequently unblocked - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 09:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Inconclusive. A small (very small) amount of research on my part convinces me that Shibumi2 has absolutely, positively been a SockPuppet.  I may have to refactor that if I research further, but right now I am convinced.  However, I am not convinced it is BryanfromPalatine.  I am not sure that Shibumi was disruptive... or at least intended to be disruptive.  I also do not know if shibumi has reformed in some way. I always try to assume good faith. But I am sure Shibumi was a sockpuppet. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The various "Bob" Sprint Wireless IPs are socks or meatpuppets of User:BryanFromPalatine
8) Per supplied Evidence, this user is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the banned User:BryanFromPalatine. Per standard Arbcom precedents sanctions on banned users apply to those working for banned users. As such, this user is either blocked as sock/meatpuppets of BryanFromPalatine, or share his same indefinite ban.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed. There are 55 million people using Sprint wireless accounts. This evidence is extremely circumstantial. Neutral Good (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And coincidentally, a lot of those 55 million Sprint subscribers (where are you getting that number? that would make them something roughly the size of Comcast plus America Online combined--my Sprint/Nextel stock isn't doing that well) all seem to route through an area regional to Palatine/Elmhurst/Hoffman Estates IL, a random suburb home to BryanFromPalatine, and all seem to constantly find their way to edit Free Republic and Free Republic's talk page with similar language, goals, and apparent interests? Did the Free Republic forum membership get a group deal to use Sprint Wireless on their laptops? Lawrence Cohen  00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see where you're getting the 55 million users from. Sprint Nextel says their company has that many (unsourced, of course) subscribers. Given that they are the amalgamation of two major cellular providers, that would mean all subscribers: telephone, cellular, wireless, other internet, dial-up. They can't have 55 million wireless subscribers because they don't even offer wireless with all their services. Lawrence Cohen  00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So how many million wireless Internet users do you suppose they have, out of that 55 million? Is it one million, three million, ten million, 20 million? Any idea? Neutral Good (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose it will depend on how many IPs the Checkusers find. Lawrence Cohen  01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor Evidence -- Not Proven. IP address research is not compelling in the least.  --Blue Tie (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

209.221.240.193 is User:BryanFromPalatine
9) Per supplied Evidence, when speaking on conservative interest topics, such as waterboarding, Free Republic, or conficts related to it, are the banned User:BryanFromPalatine.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed. There are 17,000 people sharing that IP address. The 209 IP address has not been used to edit the Free Republic article or its Talk page since last winter. It was not used to edit Waterboarding or its talk page before December. This evidence is extremely circumstantial. Neutral Good (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is little evidence, beyond the assertion of the 209 IP itself that 17000 people share that address. Even if true, no or few others appear to use it for editing wikipedia. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Few" is enough. Reading the contribs, I see an editor with a lot of interest in Telex Communications; a different editor with a lot of interest in Waterboarding; a third who seemed very interested in Clemson University; and a fourth editor (or perhaps several editors) with a broad palette of interests, including (very briefly) Free Republic. That doesn't tell us anything about the registered accounts that have used that IP address. There could be several hundred, or a dozen, or two or three, or none at all within the past 30-60 days available to be spotted by a Checkuser. But based on the contrib history of the unregistered "209" IP address alone, you have nothing. A veteran Checkuser admin took one look at this and said, "." Remember? Neutral Good (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We certainly remember, as you keep reminding us each day. In any case, based on the sockpuppetry abuse research done by Black Kite, myself, and BenBurch, and based on the endorsements scattered throughout this RFAR, I've asked for a formal investigation as a motion. Lawrence Cohen  00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the Clemson University reference and editing timelines; User:ClemsonTiger is a confirmed abusive account of BryanFromPalatine. Lawrence Cohen  01:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on what? A shared IP address? The parent corporation at that IP address is consistently one of the top 20 patent grantees in the world. That means lots and lots of engineers: intelligent, inquisitive, collaborative minds, perhaps the ideal sort of place to find Wikipedia editors. Clemson University is perhaps the best engineering school in the American South, and alumni of all US universities tend to stick together and hire fellow alumni. Thus you might find a cluster (suspiciously large, in your eyes) of Harvard University grads at one firm, and another (suspiciously large) cluster of Yale University grads at another. It would come as no surprise that this particular company might have more than one Clemson grad. It even has a factory located in South Carolina. Neutral Good (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on a block by a Checkuser, see here. Are you saying that Checkuser was wrong? BryanFromPalatine's consistent defense on his Checkuser pages and talk pages was that he shared his computers, and always revolved around "many" people having access to the same network resources he did. Oddly, all these unrelated and innocent people had the same language usage, and all seemed to migrate to conflict on "Conservative" issues, almost all ended up posting some comment or another at Free Republic, and many of them tried to remove references to User:BryanFromPalatine and User:DeanHinnen from various pages. Strange behavior. Why would they all sound similar to BryanFromPalatine, migrate to conservative issues, and try to scrub references especially to the DeanHinnen username from Wikipedia? Lawrence Cohen  01:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that like every other creation of man, Checkuser is capable of error. And so are you. This particular "209" IP editor has shown no interest in Free Republic. Your case against him is a failure. Neutral Good (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All for the Checkusers and Arbiters to decide. I just presented my share of the evidence. Your declaring something a "failure" any more than my declaring it "likely" is only worth the effort we each took to type in the words here. Lawrence Cohen  01:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Good is unnaturally familiar with checkuser protocols for a new user who essentially edits only one article. Occam's razor isn't foolproof, but the circumstances here weight strongly against Neutral Good. Jehochman  Talk 12:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Poor evidence. I have proven that at least 17,000 people could potentially have access to this number -- it might even be several times that number.  Just uncompelling.  BUT, I encourage the anon to get an account.  (BTW, Neutral Good does not claim to be a new user, so Jehochman's comments do not apply). --Blue Tie (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read: Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine. This is already concerned by multiple Checkusers, and the evidence is long-standing and unchallenged. You should bring this up on the talk page of that checkuser report if you claim to have some new evidence that demonstrates multiple checkusers were wrong. The demonstration I placed in evidence of this IP suppressing and hiding references BryanFromPalatine and DeanHinnen is just extra proof. Lawrence Cohen  07:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing on that discussion page that confirms that everyone who uses that IP is this fellow you are concerned about. I believe there are several denials and the most recent checkuser was denied.  So its not quite the slam dunk you make it out to be. --Blue Tie (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said everyone who uses that IP is Bryan. I said that IP is Bryan, and I've provided a Michael Jordan slam dunk of evidence to that end. That is a distinction. IPs and in fact entire IP ranges are routinely blocked to stop one user. Admins make routine use of block ranges on a regular basis. If one user so thoroughly affects Wikipedia in a negative fashion through their employment IP that it leads to massive disruption, it's absolutely not unheard of to block that IP or limit it's unlogged in access. All Wikipedia editing is a priviledge. No one on Earth has a right or entitlement to be here. Lawrence Cohen  14:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So in essence you are saying only one person uses that IP. I absolutely proven that this is not so. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You stated an opinion, as did I. You don't get to decide what the Checkusers and AC investigate, and neither do I. Their decisions on this will be final. Not yours, or mine. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * 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. 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) 05:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No interleaving edits between User:Neutral Good and User:Shibumi2
10) Per the evidence, and  have no interleaving edits from December 27, 2007 - January 27, 2008, though they do edit at similar times of day on different days and both have a substantial number of edits.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comments by Parties
 * Proposed. This information is consistent with both accounts being controlled by the same person. Jehochman Talk 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments by Others

NPOV disputes to the community
1) The community is directed to figure out the NPOV problems on Waterboarding, considering the guidance on general NPOV issues detailed in this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. It's not the AC's job to answer the is/isn't torture question. Give that part back to us. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I'm not sure why you posted an essentially contradictory proposal in the "Findings of fact" section. WaltonOne 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're referring to this one, I presume. I put forward there that it's a behavioral question, not content. Lets see what others say there. Lawrence Cohen  17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I'm sure it will be imposed anyway. As such I also oppose below proposals that bring the content dispute verbage to this venue. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Waterboarding is limited to 1rr for one year
2) For one year, beginning at the close of this arbitration case, Waterboarding, and any sub-pages are limited to 1rr for any users. Each violator may be blocked by any uninvolved admin for 24 hours, with the duration rising for subsequent violations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I can't think of another way to stop edit warring beyond permanent protection and enforcing editprotected requests and demonstrated consensus for each change. While that would be a great building exercise, with no nonsense, it wouldn't be right. This sanction the edit warriors, and leave the productive good faith people alone. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I really dislike this solution, but see no choice but to simplify admin intervention, in addition to whatever else comes out of this case. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Waterboarding is placed on Article Probation for one year
3) For one year, beginning at the close of this arbitration case, Waterboarding, and any sub-pages, or related pages (including User talk pages or Wikipedia space pages where Waterboarding is discussed) are on probation. Any editor performing tenditious editing, disruption, or personal attacks judged as such may be blocked by any uninvolved admin for 24 hours, with the duration rising for subsequent violations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I'm begging for this. Absolutely, if not a single other thing passes from this arbitration, pass this one. Things on this article will likely further degrade and disruption to Wikipedia increase without a strong hand to stop it, as this moves closed to November 2008 and the elections. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree I see no other way to keep this from devolving into chaos, but users should be given fair warning before such a block is initiated. If I didn't know better, I might revert something twice not knowing WP:3rr didn't apply and the rules were much more stringent. I suggest using the rules stated in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom ruling. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Agree MUST DO. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the proviso that this also include use of article tags. I've seen too many editors try to get around such provisions by splattering things they don't like with specious tags. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree This is a must do with the upcoming US election. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  06:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I know I'm going against the general consensus here - but I would rather get the article right than have harmony and stability. The fact is, the lead of the article should not state "waterboarding is torture". Imposing "article probation" is only going to make things more difficult. This really relates to my point earlier that this is a content issue, not a conduct issue, and that ArbCom should not be dealing with this in the first place. WaltonOne 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Had this been purely a content issue, it would have been resolved long ago. We need to eject those who insist on digging deeper trenches rather than finding a way to move forward. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  10:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

User:Neutral Good blocked for 60 days
4) Due to his ongoing disruptive actions and tenditious editing, Neutral Good, operating under any screen name, is blocked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed per evidence of disruptive actions and edits, repeated personal attacks, edit warring. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

User:Neutral Good blocked for 90 days
5) Due to his ongoing disruptive actions and tenditious editing, Neutral Good, operating under any screen name, is blocked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed per evidence of disruptive actions and edits, repeated personal attacks, edit warring. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

User:Neutral Good blocked for 180 days
6) Due to his ongoing disruptive actions and tenditious editing, Neutral Good, operating under any screen name, is blocked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed per evidence of disruptive actions and edits, repeated personal attacks, edit warring. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

User:Neutral Good blocked for one year
7) Due to his ongoing disruptive actions and tenditious editing, Neutral Good, operating under any screen name, is blocked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed per evidence of disruptive actions and edits, repeated personal attacks, edit warring. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

User:Neutral Good is banned as a sock or meatpuppet of User:BryanFromPalatine
8) Per User:BryanFromPalatine's previous sanctions, including the Free Republic RFAR, this user is banned and his confirmed (disclosed willingly by himself) IP of 76.209.226.118 is blocked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support this. I have reviewed this editor's behaviour and it is strongly suggestive; he is in any case a disruptive single purpose account.  One way or the other, we can do without his "help". Guy (Help!) 20:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Shibumi2 is banned as a sock or meatpuppet of User:BryanFromPalatine
9) Per User:BryanFromPalatine's previous sanctions, including the Free Republic RFAR, this user is banned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed. There is insufficient evidence to support this proposal. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Confirmed "Bob" Sprint Wireless IPs are blocked as a sock or meatpuppet of User:BryanFromPalatine
10) Rather than do a "range" block on all of these, any of these which are confirmed to speak in this same "Bob" voice, which echoes stances as detailed in Evidence, all confirmed onces will be blocked as ban evasion by User:BryanFromPalatine.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

209.221.240.193 is blocked as User:BryanFromPalatine (option 1)
11) Per User:BryanFromPalatine's previous sanctions, including the Free Republic RFAR, this IP is restricted from editing. There is no legitimate evidence beyond his own statements that "16,000" people use this IP. These 16,000 do not appear to use Wikipedia for editing. To prevent further disruption originating from this IP, a hard block is set on this IP indefinitely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence.  Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

209.221.240.193 is partially blocked as User:BryanFromPalatine (option 2)
12) Per User:BryanFromPalatine's previous sanctions, including the Free Republic RFAR, this IP is restricted from editing. There is no legitimate evidence beyond his own statements that "16,000" people use this IP. These 16,000 do not appear to use Wikipedia for editing. To prevent further disruption originating from this IP, a block is indefinitely set on it preventing anonymous editing and account creation from 209.221.240.193, with an explanation of why in the block message.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Please refer to links and evidence. I prefer Option 2 over Option 1, above. Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

A definition of torture exists
1 Torture is defined by both US and International law.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This should have been discussed at the disputed article's talk page. I would not consider it as a principle to solve this case since the ArbCom has no authority to issue judgments or principles on content. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (For the record, we did discuss it extensively at the disputed article's talk page. However, I agree that it is a content issue. Sorry for writing in the arbs-only section, but I felt this needed clarification. ) WaltonOne 19:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it was discussed at lenght and that's why we are having this case. But still that doesn't mean that the ArbCom has to deal with that. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Propose: since apparently people think the law should not be viewed as a legal principle. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Arbitration Committee cannot rule on content. This is a content issue. WaltonOne 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While legal bodies may define things for their own internal purposes, that has no bearing on Wikipedia. We define things in content based on sourcing only. Lawrence Cohen  17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to FayssalF: Like Walton says, it was discussed at length. Part of the problem is that there is a fundamental disagreement as well by multiple parties of how to apply definitions of RS--i.e., should an alleged authoritative body like a court system have more "weight" over matters that may fall under their purview, or should medical boards have more "weight" over matters related to medical topics? This FOF as written is a pure content matter, but it's a good example of the disconnect happening, where folks on one side are applying fairly wide exclusionary principles to what has value as a RS, when all the RS themselves individually are fine. Lawrence Cohen  19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I support above proposal of Lawrence NPOV disputes to the community. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe the statement proposed is "True" but I do not think it is a principle of wikipedia.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Political arguments do not alter the legal definition of torture
2 Identifying certain acivities as possible crimes against humanity may have political consequences, i.e. Armenian genocide. This does not alter the legalities involved, nor should Wikipedia attempt to change legal concepts in favour of non-legal arguments.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Please see my comment at the section above. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  16:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Propose: politics are important but we should let experts have the last say on how to interpret the law. Politicians and pundits cannot be used Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While it's true that Wikipedia should not attempt to change legal concepts in favour of non-legal arguments, it's a matter of opinion what constitutes a "legal concept", and I don't think torture (or, for that matter, crimes against humanity) are solely legal concepts. Furthermore, as stated above, this is a content issue and the Arbitration Committee cannot rule on content. WaltonOne 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A content issue, and Wikipedia defines things according to it's own internal policies and standards. If an article is policy compliant, external social or political ramifications from that article content are not our concern. Lawrence Cohen  17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Politicians write the laws you cite. Their opinions are valid. Pundits (depending on who they are) may have knowledge of a subject. Dismissing such views would not help Wikipedia. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Their opinions as politicians have value in regards to debates in their own country, yes, but if an American politician makes a statement about such and such, why would that trump the wording of an entire article, which covers a global topic, in a world-wide encyclopedia? We keep coming back to this nationalist thing: the US isn't the center of the universe, let alone the Wikipedia one. Lawrence Cohen  22:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor should their opinions be excluded if they come from the U.S. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And we haven't. There has been extensive talk to incorporate the notable opinions as found. However, the minority US viewpoints aren't anything special. They're just general opinions no more important than any other. They are to be treated them with the same general weight as any other sources. Lawrence Cohen  06:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the point of contention is that they are marginalized and discounted as the "real" definition. I've made my point. Good night. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They are marginalized after analysis because the viewpoint of the current US administration is a minority viewpoint by our standards. Awkwardly, it's a very prominent minority opinion, given who is alleged to hold it, but that makes it no less minority. I don't if that is what is upsetting to people. Applying NPOV, WEIGHT, and FRINGE standards no matter who makes a minority statement or takes a minority viewpoint--be it the US, the United Nations, or the Vatican--would be a testament to Wikipedia's values. Lawrence Cohen  06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "They are marginalized WP:NOR|after analysis because the viewpoint of the current US administration is a minority viewpoint by our standards. Awkwardly, it's a very prominent minority opinion..." Wikipedia policies and guidelines address this explicitly (emphasis mine): WP:FRINGE "...all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence." which is further backed up in WP:WEIGHT (part of WP:NPOV) "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views...Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." — BQZip01 —  talk 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In this specific content case, the view that waterboarding isn't torture explicitly is held by a tiny minority, of which a handful of the membership is "prominent", while most are not. It is the textbook definition of a minority fringe view. The fact that a handful of prominent US politicians holds that view makes it no less so. It doesn't belong in the lead, since to give extra prominence to the views of 10~ Americans in the past 5 years over all other historical data and opinion from the past 500 years would be outrageously biased in favor of alleged modern American conservative political thought. I don't understand how this is even debated. To give this minority view any more than a footnote would completely give far too much weight to the opinions of 10~ individuals, more weight than all of the combined history of the topic that predates the United States itself. Lawrence Cohen  20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wording unsuitable, plus - exact same reasoning as Lawrence. A content issue, and Wikipedia defines things according to it's own internal policies and standards. If an article is policy compliant, external social or political ramifications from that article content are not our concern. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not see how this makes any sense since laws are political.  I also do not think something this specific is appropriate as a wikipedia policy. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Non-experts are not a reliable source
3 The opinion of non-experts -i.e. politicians, religious leaders, pundits- cannot be used to establish consensus, or lack thereof, between experts on a given topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed: several topics have had claims of widespread debate, yet among experts there appears to be consensus making the topic disputed among religious and political individuals. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 17:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of these principles are true but irrelevant, since torture is not solely a legal concept, and thus there is no such thing as an undisputed "expert" in what constitutes torture. Furthermore, as I said above, the Arbitration Committee cannot rule on content. Determining expert consensus is a matter for the community. WaltonOne 17:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but for different reasons. If a weight of sources and notable opinions exist on subject X, we can certainly make use of that under policy. Lawrence Cohen  17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most politicians, such as Ted Poe and Rudolph Giuliani, are licensed attorneys and therefore experts on the law. Other politicians, such as Ron Paul, are licensed physicians and therefore experts on the medical effects of certain events. Some so-called "pundits," such as Andrew C. McCarthy, are also licensed attorneys and therefore experts on the law. Neutral Good (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a general rule. Non-experts are not equal to experts, i.e. teach the controversy to advocate a widespread debate among experts on Intelligent Design, A non-physician stating Mucoid plaque is a medical condition, et cetera. Second, the point is that being a politician is not sufficient to be an expert. Of course, a politician with a law degree, or medical degree, can be considered to be knowledgable on topics that fall within the scope of his/her studies Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton  10:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per previous three opposes. See #2 for more info as well. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Oppose for this case, chiefly because of disagreements about "who is an expert". --Blue Tie (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * [[Image:Symbol_declined.svg|15px]] Regardless, being a nonexpert on a subject, should not automatically make a person unable to tell consensus. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 15:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion not a reliable source
4 Invoking public opinion cannot be used to establish consensus, or lack thereof, between experts on a given topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Propose: despite the fact this is considered a logical fallacy people unfortunately seem to think public opinion is a reliable way of establishing the details of a certain topic. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 17:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. WaltonOne 17:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Global warming. Even if 5,000,000 people in a poll said Global Warming were "fake", that doesn't supercede all the other sourced material and opinions available. Wikipedia is not Gallup. Lawrence Cohen  17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This statement misrepresents the argument. You aren't just establishing consensus. You're trying to dismiss the "waterboarding may not be torture" experts as WP:FRINGE. When they represent 29% of the general population, they can't be dismissed as a fringe. There's a significant dispute about the question of whether waterboarding is torture in all cases.
 * While I recognize that this may be a content issue, I would very much appreciate any guidance the arbitrators can provide on what role public opinion polls should play with respect to WP:WEIGHT. Under what circumstances can an article simply state something as a fact without hedging (and then explain related controversy later in the article)? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "When they represent 29% of the general population, they can't be dismissed as a fringe." - why not? That's essentially what the global warming article does. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent comparison. Lawrence Cohen  20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking the exact opposite. Just because it is done that way on another page doesn't make it right. If Johnny jumped off a bridge... (in short, this is simply poor/lazy logic as to why we should/shouldn't do something). 131.44.121.252 (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Your logic is in error, because that standard is applied to many articles. The global warming article is a model of how to do things right for NPOV. Lawrence Cohen  20:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "The global warming article is a model of how to do things right for NPOV." Your opinion (doesn't have consensus as a policy or guideline as far as I can see)...comparisson of apples and oranges. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the guideline is right here, on why polls are to be avoided as Wikipedia sources, especially for contentious matters: Reliable source examples: "Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care." Lawrence Cohen  22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually...see here 131.44.121.252 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant proposal. Public opinion, on its own is not a "Source".  Public Opinion on a matter may be reported by sources including polls.  Public opinion may be reported as describing a degree of support or lack thereoff for something. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that polls per guidelines, tradition, and policy, which control our actions, deprecate the use of polls as sources--they are the lowest value source, because Wikipedia is not built on hoi polloi uneducated public opinion. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what guidelines or policy you are thinking of. Reporting the results of a poll are fairly common activities on wikipedia.  Verifiability is the operative policy as far as I know.  More importantly, a poll, even if not used in the article can be used to evaluate the existence of a dispute and I believe this is the real reason people are objecting to the poll in this particular case ; if polls can be deprecated and declared invalid in general (probably bad for many articles) then on this article one of the sources for observing a dispute may be ignored. This is a weird form of censorship.
 * Incidentally, I believe I can provide evidence that even Nescio, who proposes this, uses and supports the use of polls when it he/she favors the results. As I said, this is a policy that he/she would probably only want to apply to this article.  --Blue Tie (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Polling data is a primary source. The problem here is not that it's censorship, but that using a general public poll, of the regular public, is the problem. If an entire argument rests on a specific, disputed primary source, that's a problem for the usage of that argument and primary source and it's crossing the line to OR. A random Internet poll or phone poll saying "40% of Americans" believe something means we can only say "40% of Americans believe x" and thats if thats literally what the article referencing the poll says. It's not evidence of any dispute, and it's sure as hell not in this case evidence of the is/isn't torture bit. Expert opinion alone decides that, not the general unwashed masses, who never decide anything on any article. Snobby, yes, but that's how we "roll".
 * Most importantly, that poll has zero value for anything outside of the United States, so if--if--it were used, its usage would be allowable only in the United States subsection, not in the lead, not in a general formulation of whether it's disputed, and it would need to be clear that the alleged conflict applies only to one nation, based on the source. There is still no evidence of any global dispute or conflict. People need to consistently hammer this point, because the wording of other responses is distorting this--there is NO conflict on this subject matter outside of certain political circles within the United States. Giving any United States of America angle or voice primacy in any article on any global historical topic is not allowed. I've yet to see a single person on your side of the fence concede this simple, glaring point. Do you agree that Wikipedia should have no special deference to the United States, being just one country of many, and not any more important than any other? <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Public opinion can be used to prevent dismissal of opinion as WP:FRINGE
When a majority of expert opinion reaches one conclusion and a minority of expert opinion reaches an opposite conclusion, public opinion may have some weight in determining whether the minority of expert opinion is a WP:FRINGE.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. see above. Neutral Good (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: clearly the idea of allowing public opinion to influence what experts consider to be the consensus is unacceptable. Invoking public opinion is a logical fallacy for a reason! Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 10:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Goes against already established precedent of global warming, intelligent design etc. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Precedence. Unscientific, uninformed or may only be aware of one side. Mob rule? Inertia Tensor (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a chance, undermines scores of precedents and policies. Would be a charter for medical quackery, flat earthers, Neo-Nazis, 9/11 truthers, and Bigfoot to take control of Wikipedia.
 * Only if they can convince 29% of the poll respondents in a very educated and sophisticated country that the earth is flat, that Bigfoot is real, or that Dick Cheney flew the 9/11 planes into the World Trade Center by remote control. In response to Stephan Schulz below, there is no indication that the polling in other countries would be any different. Neutral Good isn't asking for public opinion to decide the matter; he only seeks to use public opinion to prevent the dismissal of a minority of very noteworthy experts as WP:FRINGE. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment: In this particular case, "public opinion" is gauged by one single CNN telephone poll of 1024 people from a single country in a politically polarized situation. I would suggest that claims about unspecified "public opinion" are treated with extreme caution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:FRINGE
5 When 92% of sources state a certain position and 3% opposes that position the latter can be described as "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The claim that all or most field experts, scholars, legal experts or politicians hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.


 * I will be trying to answer Ka-Ping Yee by saying that if, and only if involved users already agree that most of experts define it as X then i don't see where is the problem except the behavior of users who do not fathom something like the "the shape of planet earth is oblate spheroid round though a minority believes it is flat" formula. It is the most neutral way to deal with it. Does it change any facts? No. Is it misleading? No. If involved editors follow these guidelines they would be no need to argue about FRINGE anymore. And please do not forget to take note of my first paragraph. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  16:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Propose: this is at the heart of the debate, does 3% constitute a fringe opinion? Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: this is to establish a quantitative rule for determining whether some views can be considered fringe, i.e. is this when the view is held by <1 %, <5%, <10%, <15%? Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In this case, the 3% include Rudolph Giuliani, former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York and possibly the next president of the United States; Michael Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States; and Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant US attorney for SDNY and now director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism. These are very prominent legal authorities. Any one of them is worth the weight of 100 law professors. Neutral Good (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have an Iranian politician voicing doubts regarding the Holocaust. By your logic since he is a notable individual his views establish an actual dispute among experts regarding the veracity of it having taken place. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton
 * No, NG didn't say that. He pointed out that, in addition to being notable political figures, both Giuliani and Mukasey are in fact lawyers, and therefore, by your own definition, fall within the community of "experts". WaltonOne 14:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "These are very prominent legal authorities. Any one of them is worth the weight of 100 law professors." This sounds like political status and not expertise is used to argue that a numerical tiny minority should be given equal weight. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it is not true to assert that "any one of them is worth the weight of 100 law professors". We cannot, and should not, judge which authorities have more expertise. Therefore, as suggested, we should state in the lead that the majority of legal experts consider waterboarding to fall within the definition of torture in US and international law, but that a minority have challenged this assertion. Where a minority dissenting opinion is held by experts, we should not act as if said opinion does not exist and the majority opinion is unchallengeable fact. We should highlight the conflict. Both sides are likely to be politically biased, so we shouldn't take that into account at all. (We're going off-track here anyway - this is fundamentally a content issue and the ArbCom will not rule on content.) WaltonOne 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "We cannot, and should not, judge which authorities have more expertise." Wikipedia editors do this every day. How else do you explain that the global warming article represents the views of climatologists, if the community did not come to some consensus regarding the expertise of notable people in this area? Otherwise we would be crediting political pundits as being at the same level as Professors. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Global warming is a scientific topic and a matter of interpreting scientific fact; we therefore give the views of scientists more weight than those of non-scientists. In contrast, the question of what is and isn't torture is not a factual question; it's a question of opinion. "X is torture" can never be a matter of fact; arguably "X is classed as torture under US and international law" could be stated as a matter of fact, but that's a different debate. (I don't really think the global warming article is a good example anyway of how to handle controversy, but that's also a different debate.) WaltonOne 20:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that one of the common threads in this debate is that one side believes that articles from disputed concepts like global warming, the Holocaust etc. have established certain precedents on Wikipedia, whilst the other side has said that these articles are not "a good example anyway of how to handle controversy", "POV-pushing" and "not a precedent, but rather a cancer in the system.". Could arbitrators please rule on this - are the other disputed articles "good" as regards Wikipedia policy, or are they flagrant violations that should be discounted? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then there's the third option: they aren't part of this discussion and this issue should be decided on its own merits, not how other people do things. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats not how Wikipedia works, unfortunately. Policy is based on established practice. Lawrence Cohen  20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um...no Policy is the "codification of general practice that already has wide consensus," not merely that a lot of people do it. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone doing something = de facto consensus. That's just the way it is. Lawrence Cohen  20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Everyone"? There is no case where "everyone" does something. Someone always deviates from the norm. This is a gross overgeneralization. A lot of people vandalize, does that make it a policy? I grow weary of this argument. It shows how little you understand actual policy and guidelines. You also clearly intend to get the last word in. Please feel free to put it after my signature. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While I recognize that this may be a content issue, I would very much appreciate any guidance the arbitrators can provide on how the counting of sources bears on WP:WEIGHT, and how to handle conflicting opinions about how sources should be counted. (This also bears on the item below, "Single vs. multiple sources".)  Under what circumstances can an article simply state something as a fact without hedging (and then explain related controversy later in the article)? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Counting sources is not the same as establishing fringe. It is, in fact, Original Research .--Blue Tie (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dangerous reasoning. By your rationale, we'd be putting the viewpoints of the Iranian President in a prominent voice on the Holocaust article that it was just a dirty little fiction. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I just realized where you are getting this 92% figure and it is a DIRECT contradiction to WP:OR. I can throw together a list of people who support the concept of waterboarding too. Additionally, while this is merely an essay, it certainly applies here. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Single Source vs. Multiple Sources
When multiple experts sign a single letter or petition, or author a single article, it must be treated as one source rather than multiple sources for the purpose of determining a consensus of expert opinion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Propose. Here we have 115 left-wing law professors signing a form letter to the attorney general, claiming that waterboarding is torture. They are being treated as 115 separate sources and this is severely skewing the determination of expert consensus. If each of the 115 had authored a separate, published article in a law review stating that "waterboarding is torture," then they should be treated as 115 separate sources. But this is a form of astroturfing and should not be rewarded. Neutral Good (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: when the BBC cites 10 experts on a topic it is misleading to let WP say that only one experts has that opinion. CLearly it is acceptable, if not mandatory, to disclose the actual number of experts that hold a particular view. As an aside, the "115 left-wing law professors" appears to introduce the notion that 1 editors can disallow "left-wing" sources for allegedly being incorrect, 2 it is NPOV to allow only "right-wing" law professors. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 10:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We should not be counting. We should look for a reliable source that states what the community of experts thinks.  We cannot conduct our own poll of experts. Jehochman  Talk 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. By this flawed view of sourcing policy, valid sources such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would be invalid, because "all" the scientists globally signed on together, rather publishing individually. Dangerous precedent. Lawrence Cohen  16:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose terminology is all off. The problem is that 1 source states that, and I will concede it is a strong source backed by 100+ experts. If we are counting sources here, then there is one source. Again, just for the sake of clarity, we are talking about counting sources, not the number of experts. To say there is more than one source is misleading. To say that a number of experts agree on it is not misleading. This confounds the situation and provides no clarity. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Biased loaded proposal. Has no place here. Editor is trying to emotionally disqualify any opinions that do not conform to his, and was been consistently unable to provide counter sources. Where are the 100 right wing lawyers? Inertia Tensor (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you consider THEELDERS.org one source, because they have united on AI's universal declaration? Nelson Mandela, Graça Machel, Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan, Ela Bhatt, Lakhdar Brahimi, Gro Brundtland, Jimmy Carter, Fernando H Cardoso, Li Zhaoxing, Mary Robinson, Muhammad Yunus, Aung San Suu Kyi? I get to meet one next week :-) Inertia Tensor (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Regarding WP:WEIGHT
6 When detailing a certain subject that has a global history of > 500 years, to take comments made after 2001 in only one country, to sway the contents of a historical view would violate "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Propose: another part of the debate. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Request ArbCom codify or at least help mediate what a "tiny minority" actually is. Furthermore, "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Note that it says not to give it too much weight, not none at all and that it might be misleading. Clarity on ArbCom's part might be useful here. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Regarding WP:V and WP:NOR
7 To dismiss sourced information claiming the sources used are misunderstanding the subject violates: ''"care should be taken not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context." ''


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Propose: we do not interpret and/or correct sources. The fact we consider the information incorrect is irrelevant, if it is verifiable it can be used. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Regarding WP:NPOV
8 To disallow sourced information claiming the sources used are perceived to be biased in one particular direction while not objecting to sources that are perceived to have an opposing bias violates: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases - what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Propose: one of the core principles on WP, we should not insist on removing sourced information we dislike while at the same time advocating the use of similar information supporting our personal view. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 15:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Regarding WP:NPOV
9 Wikipedia should be consistent in applying policy and guidelines, if a given article cannot state as fact what another, yet similar, article can say this means that either the fact can be presented as such, as the similar article does, or the other article should remove that statement of fact. Both positions are mutually exclusive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Propose: consistency is a way to avoid a double standard on how to write articles, i.e. waterboarding vs. Rack (torture). N.B. please observe the use of the word torture in the title. If something applies to article X it applies to article Y. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yet, we have Solitary confinement, Blackmail, Shunning, sleep deprivation, etc. all of which are sometimes called torture. A black & white answer is not forthcoming because there is a disagreement. Reflection of this disagreement is all that "the other side" is asking for. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This of course defies logic. CLearly there are people that consider "cleaning your room," and "do your homework" a form of torture. It is not prohibited to use common sense. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your implication that my statement is illogical and lacks common sense is very condescending. I used these examples because they are on the torture article. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur fully with 131 above. "If something applies to article X it applies to article Y" is simply untrue, because X and Y might have fundamentally different characteristics. We should write each article based on the sources available, not try and present it in the same way as other topics that we personally regard as "similar". WaltonOne 12:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the principle. 1 Policy applies to every article on WP in the same way, 2 If we are discussing fruit, we should treat every article about fruit the same, if we discuss medicine we should apply the same rules to these articles. In this particular situation an article describes abusive techniques that historical and legal sources consider to be torture. Surely you are not suggesting we should claim waterboarding and the rack do not share the same characteristics? Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 13:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They do not share the same characteristics in that the rack is universally agreed to be a form of torture, while this classification is disputed in the case of waterboarding. I agree that policy applies to every article in the same way; however, this dispute is not about trying to make "exceptions" for politically controversial articles. It is about whether we can state an opinion ("waterboarding is torture") as if it were a fact. WaltonOne 16:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On what ground is waterboarding is a form of torture, opinion while the rack is a form of torture is not an opinion, i.e."I agree that policy applies to every article in the same way?" Second, does "universally agreed to be a form of torture" include the individuals that throughout history have not considered this to be torture, as is the case with waterboarding? Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the same reasons that Solitary confinement, Blackmail, Shunning, and sleep deprivation can be considered torture. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Artificial drowning interrogation was universally agreed to be torture from 1478 - 2002. And now a very small minority of politically motived experts disagree, but they have no court rulings or medical/scientific evidence to back them up. This does not a dispute make. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a requirement to have scientific evidence or a legal case to state that a controversy exists. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Problem with implementation. When two articles disagree, which one is right?  Are they actually dealing with the same issue?  Is one scientific and the other social?  These would have different criteria.  This is a bad proposal. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) A sourced claim that describes a fact as "disputed" does not, in itself, prohibit an article from stating that fact.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I support this principle. But this is a key turning point of the debate, and while it may be a content issue, I would greatly appreciate guidance on this question from the arbitrators.  WP:ASF describes an opinion as "a matter which is subject to dispute".  Does the mere claim that "X is disputed" in a newspaper article automatically guarantee that X is, in fact, disputed and cannot be stated as fact on Wikipedia?  I would say no (e.g. evolution is described in the press as disputed by creationists, but Wikipedia is still allowed to present evolution as fact), though the existence of such claims may mean that the article ought to mention them (i.e. state X, and later describe the controversy surrounding X).  Some clarity on when an article can state X, when it cannot state X, when it must state X in a qualified way, and when it can state X as long as it also mentions controversy about X, would be very helpful, I think. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you mean to say the fact a source reports/describes a particular dispute does not in itself prove such a dispute actually exists among experts, i.e. Holocaust denial, teach the controversy. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 15:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This principle is certainly true, BUT does not directly apply to the situation at hand. Those who oppose the current wording have more than one example (not a single instance). That said, I have no problem reaffirming this principle if for nothing else than clarity. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * The other controversial issues cited by User:Nescio above also have more than one example. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Too general and an absolute violation of WP:VER. Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability.  When something can be verified by a reliable source, that is sufficient.  Such a policy as the one above would begin the process of saying "Sometimes verifiability does not matter". --Blue Tie (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposals by User:BQZip01
I am EXTREMELY new to this process, so please...be gentle...

WP:NPOV supersedes WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE
1) WP:NPOV supersedes WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Anything in WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE that conflicts with WP:NPOV should be rewritten to be in line with WP:NPOV. Clarity on this point should be emphasized in WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Please consider this as obiter for the moment, but the position as I understand it is that WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are subsidiary applications of WP:NPOV and contribute to fleshing it out. Instead of 'rewritten' it would be better to have 'construed'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This should be stated as a fact, not opinion or a principle. This is a policy on Wikipedia, not a guideline.
 * I agree with the statement (although this would usually come under Principles rather than Findings of fact). You're absolutely right - NPOV is a core Foundation issue and is probably our most important content policy (along with WP:V) so it supersedes anything else. WaltonOne 08:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The interaction of these principles are pertinent to this conflict, and clarification on their interaction would be appreciated from arbitrers. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  10:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Henrik, this is one of the cornerstones of this dispute and clarity would help. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  12:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree, (with purpose of this proposal) Agree probably, sometimes, maybe a lot of times, but is anyone disputing this or are we wiki lawyering here. I don't think it genuinely got to a dispute over priority and conflict of these polices, and some of those in the dispute in the past have tried to game things to claim that FRINGE THEORIES decisions of the editors were completely overruled by NPOV, when frankly many of us, if not MOST of us would say that this was not a case of NPOV. If someone really wants to WIKILAWYER I would answer WP: Ignore All Rules, because frankly this whole project would turn into a smouldering mess if say elsewhere, one person with a fringe theory claimed NPOV because she/he didn't like the consensus that it was fringe and then said NPOV stops anyone complaining about their fringe theory. Same goes for undue weight. Common sense should always apply, Wiki is not a court, and narrow reading will bring us in perfect little circles as the example above shows. I would ask the arbitrators to consider this example and provide guidance for how to apply such things as shown in my example. - Use_common_sense Inertia Tensor (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Policies exist for a reason. To claim that a guideline is equivalent or supersedes a policy contradicts WP:PG Can you explain your reasoning with regards to WP:PG then? — BQZip01 —  talk 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A wide interpretation will continue to cause bickering. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Use_common_sense Inertia Tensor (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose, essentially for the reasons given by Sam. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are important illustrations of WP:NPOV that (barely) keep us from drifting into giving equal weight to Immanuel Velikovsky vs. Albert Einstein with respect to planetary motions, to the Royal Society and the IPCC vs. Jim Inhofe on global warming, and to Ernst Zündel vs. Raul Hilberg on the Holocaust. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Significant Minority Views
2) If a significant minority disagrees with an assertion of fact, such a statement must be altered to reflect this view. (emphasis added 05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC) for clarity)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I realize this is a proxy statement on content, but without a concrete statement one way or the other on this application of WP:NPOV, this argument will not go away. A controversial conclusion of this kind cannot be permitted to exist on Wikipedia. What constitutes a significant minority should be better defined. I don't want wikilawyering to take over, but without a clear statement of what a significant minority is, a minority view can be dismissed by pointing to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.
 * Agreed. WaltonOne 08:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * irrelevant as this case involves a possible fringe view, which by definition is not "a significant minority." Any non-fringe view is already allowed under policy. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the problem I am talking about. Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating it. BQZip01 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment, BQZ. Are you endorsing Nescio's statement here? Lawrence Cohen  18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dismissing such a view as WP:FRINGE just because 50.1% of the population doesn't believe it to be so runs contrary to WP:NPOV. The question to be settled is what exactly is a WP:FRINGE opinion. I do not believe this qualifies. The same goes with others. What I am asking here is for further guidance. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Clearly when 92% of experts voice an opinion which only 3% of experts oppose it is difficult not to see that as fringe. To suggest that public opinion should sway that view is interesting. Today a large group of US citizens feel that there is more to 9/11 than has been disclosed so far. Your logic effectively means that those offering alternative scenarios no longer are fringe and those views are not conspiracy theories but should be presented as a genuine dispute among experts.. Nomen Nescio <small style="color:blue;">Gnothi seauton 09:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the population thinks there is more to 9/11, it doesn't mean that every single fringe view has to be lifted up and brought into the 9/11 article. This "92%" figure is pure original research and should be dismissed as such. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal goes against precedent established by the Holocaust etc. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Precedent" is neither a policy or guideline.
 * Not all policy is written down, thankfully. All policy comes from regular practice and precedent. Lawrence Cohen  20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually a policy is explicitly written down. Please read the link. Policy comes from consensus, not merely how things are done, but by agreement on how to do things. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Written policy just describes what the accepted current practices are. Do all 3,000,000 Wikipedia editors all have to weigh in on policy matters? Policy as written is what the current accepted practice is on any given matter. Lawrence Cohen  20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the link says it all. Policy is explicitly codified. "Accepted practice" is not policy, it is merely accepted. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposition is dangerous, as Chris mentions. It would enable people to elevate all manner of nonsense to higher authority than they have otherwise, such as Holocaust deniers. Lawrence Cohen  20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To the two responses above, the precedent is dangerous only if a strong minority exists (in which case such an opinion should be included, IMHO). The Holocaust undeniably happened. That a small percentage say it didn't is merely an indication as to how pliable some people's minds are. Furthermore, we are not talking about an event where people are witnesses and there is photgraphic proof, but an opinion on terminology. Furthermore, where is the poll that says 29% of people believe the Holocaust never happened? This is a comparison of apples to oranges. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Here: "A November 1992 survey (now in dispute) conducted by the Roper Organization for the American Jewish Committee found that fully 22 percent of American adults and 20 percent of high school students thought it was possible that the Holocaust never happened. Another 12 percent weren't certain whether it was possible or impossible.". Now discredited because of ambiguous wording, it nonetheless presented about the same figures as the poll in question and shows that polling is in general a questionable practice for factual matters. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That a third thought something was possible or were confused is a far cry from the polling done in the example given on the talk page. That one poll is dismissed doesn't mean all polls are wrong/misleading. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but we shouldn't use primary sources like polls anyway: Reliable source examples: "Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care." Lawrence Cohen  23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "treated with considerable care" ≠ "we shouldn't use" 131.44.121.252 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the content guideline again; that bit you quote is for secondary sources based on a poll. Polls themselves are to be avoided. That needs to be clear. Either way, we historically don't write articles based on random public factoids from polls, because general public opinion ≠ WP:RS. Lawrence Cohen  23:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BQZip01"the precedent is dangerous only if a strong minority exists (in which case such an opinion should be included, IMHO)" - Right, so to continue the example.... you believe that the opinions expressed in this poll should be included as representative of fact in Wikipedia articles? That a large percentage of people (in some countries, the majority) believe that "Jews have too much power in the business world" means that this "fact" of public opinion should be taken into account in every statement made on any Wikipedia article relating to Jewish business interests? Because that's what you've asserted with your idea that "significant minority views" should affect every statement. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What specifically would be altered. That criticism exists is certainly notable in its own frame of reference, but that a business leader (who happens to be Jewish) made $2 million last year is immaterial as it is a simple fact. What article would you associate with this reference?
 * Reading this again, it is dangerous, as it would allow for any number of insane conspiracy theories, and POV pushes to take hold of Wikipedia. People will be able to alter Abortion to say, "Abortion is the murder of an unborn child," and claim this sort of precedent for that, because "a lot of people believe that," or who knows what else. If something is a minority view the impetus is on them, and the editors who want it included to demonstrate it's value and worth at all times. Either way, this proposition here is dangerous as it would basically be handing edit warriors and POV pushers a loaded gun to write Wikipedia to their own standards. Lawrence Cohen  23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would advocate the exact opposite: that someone can't state that specifically because a significant part of the population believes otherwise. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But your logic on the torture question is that if a "significant minority" disagrees on a point, the article must clearly and prominently reflect that. By that logic, since a "significant number" of people say that abortion is murder, that can be placed in a prominent way there. Of course, the othe side can say a "significant number" say it isn't, and then the article lead will have to hem and haw over murder, and we'd have the article become a war zone. We don't do any of this, thankfully, since it would be a total disaster. We especially don't do this with minority, fringe viewpoints. Lawrence Cohen  06:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, please read my postings above regarding WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE, prominence plays a key role here. An ArbCom ruling on what is a "small" or "tiny" minority actually is would halt a lot of this bickering... — BQZip01 —  talk 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read your postings, but these minority viewpoint figures are prominent only in limited political circles in one country in the world. In the global sense, which is all we're after, they are a footnote and aberration towards all the other compiled history on the topic of waterboarding.  Lawrence Cohen  20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Please stop misrepresenting the evidence. Several very prominent legal authorities (whom you have dismissed because they happen to hold political office) have stated that waterboarding unequivocally is not torture, or that it is torture in some cases but not in others, or that they are not sure. Meanwhile, 115 astroturfed signatures by left-wing partisans on a form letter are treated as 115 separate experts This constant misrepresentation of the evidence by the "waterboarding is torture" crowd is one of the hallmarks of this case, and ArbCom should take action against you for this constant misrepresentation. Neutral Good (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call world news on CNN, ABC, CBS, FOXNews, MSNBC, Al Jazeerah, BBC, etc examples of "limited political circles". — BQZip01 —  talk 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I beleave "limited political circles" means the right wing (not all) of one political party in one country, and that is limited on a global scale. When you add the recentism of these views they get VERY limited. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  12:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make them less prominent. Prominence can be one-sided. Again, we are talking "Prominent", not "accepted by all". If they are discussed on many news outlets, they are, by definition, prominent. (Please note, I am not discussing application of prominence at this time, only that such views are indeed prominent). — BQZip01 —  talk 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't rate sources on how famous they are, many members of the South African (and other african governments) don't believe HIV causes AIDS, we should not change the AIDS article because of their political positions. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  06:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Prominent" not "famous". There is a distinct difference. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference? <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  06:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, this is serious laziness on your part as you can easily look them up, but you choose not to.
 * Prominent
 * Standing out, or projecting; jutting; protuberant.
 * Likely to attract attention from its size or position; conspicuous.
 * Famous
 * Well known.
 * In the public eye.
 * As a simple example. everyone knows "water is wet", but it isn't likely to attract attention or stand out. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Still not getting it, so that someone had an important job (that is nothing to do with the topic) we should promote his views above those of reliable medical and legal opinion (because they don't have a famous job). <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the topic of waterboarding, they are, given that approximately 10~ notable people have gone on record to say waterboarding may not be torture. Lawrence Cohen  20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OR — BQZip01 —  talk 04:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly is saying that only 10~ notable people are on record is OR, when we have only 10~ people on record? Lawrence Cohen  05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have 10 web sources versus ~40 web sources (we are talking sources not people in agreement here). To make a conclusion based on the number of web sources is original research. As for the number of people who are in agreeance, that number is approximately 2/3 in favor of it being illegal, 1/3 against. Respectfully, I think that it qualifies as a significant minority view. The assertion that it is 92% is ludicrous and is original research (a conclusion based on non-scientific polling methods). — BQZip01 —  talk 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Several points 1)We don't count sources by numbers as if they are all equal, they are not, we give more prominence to more qualified sources. 2) we don't just have web sources, every book writen before 2001 also calles it torture but still no pre-2001 not-torture sources are to be found. 3)We have medical, legal and lingustic sources that say its torture, you have two minor politicians and a handful of pundits. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  06:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your nationalistic bias having been burst like a balloon, this is laudably absurd wikilawyering. Well done. This is exactly why we're at arbitration; disruptively over the top methods that are literally everything but the kitchen sink hurled at NPOV until something sticks. Well done! Lawrence Cohen  06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments are extremely hostile and I request you pull them IAW WP:NPA. Consider this a warning. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The preceding is just one more example of Lawrence Cohen's nastiness, repeatedly displayed here ar ArbCom and at Waterboarding. If you disagree with him and don't immediately cave in, you will sooner or later be targeted by his WP:CIV violations. Neutral Good (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I thinks yours are both hostile, and very unhelpful in moving towards a resolution. Anyway, this ARB will NOT settle a content dispute, only show us the way, provide clarity, and deal with disruptive users. People on both sides of the pre-Christmas row, on both extremes, were very complimentary of Lawrence's work in this long running dispute. Inertia Tensor (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's Inertia tensor agreeing with everything Lawrence Cohen says, but with even more nastiness. Neutral Good (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO: Sarcasm + "nationalistic bias" + "laudably absurd" + accusations of wikilawyering when specificity and policy are the actual debate + calling reasonable debate/discussion "disruptively over the top" + hyperbole = hostility (or at least creating a hostile environment). I am not asking for a settlement on content, but how to apply policy. What constitutes a "significant minority" and how should they be applied. Can they be included in the lead? Must they be incorporated in the lead? Can a simple footnote suffice (or does that not present a "significant minority" appropriately? As for the specific comment: just because some people found his work complimentary then doesn't make this right. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are only allowed to come to some consensus by comparing individual sources, and not by considering multiple sources (as BQZip01 claims this is "Original Research"), then we have a single source representing the composite views of over 100 US professors of law, versus whatever individual opinion in opposing articles. This is the equivalent of the IPCC position on the global warming page, and the weighting is going to be as significant here as it is there. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that you cannot compare individual sources; you certainly can. I was trying to show what I was saying, not that other people were wrong in phrasing accordingly. Certainly some sources are more reliable and stronger than others, no doubt there. But to say that what wikipedians found online represents the entire body of evidence is original research. The 92% figure cited above is not only inappropriate statistical analysis, even if it were done correctly it would be both original research and a primary source. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - strongly - This tries to establish as de-facto that there is indeed a significant minority. I see no signs of a significant minority, and frankly I can't see how we can consider adding a lot of weight to a torturer claiming it is not torture (US Admin) - much as I would not give a lot of credence to a murdering saying they weren't murderer, but doing enhanced hurting. Yes, I would mention this in an article, but it really wouldn't affect the lead. The real question is whether there is a significant minority, and where's the proof. Inertia Tensor (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is implemented it may not necessarily apply in this case (I am willing to go with ArbCom on the definition of this). Please reconsider this in a Wikipedia-wide context. As a matter of fact, a finding in the opposite direction (even a significant minority opinion cannot be used...) would also be quite useful. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that a definition of what a significant minority is and how they should be applied is what needs to be defined here. If we have that, we have a concrete set of rules that can be applied across the board to Wikipedia. Whose opinions count? Whose don't. These are questions we need answered. Politicians make laws. Lawyers interpret them. Judges apply them. Pundits/prominent politically associated figures influence all of the aforementioned (though to varying degrees). All I'm saying is that a lack of a somewhat solid rule here is creating a lot of tension/frustration. Personally, I think an opinion with over 20%-25% support should be incorporated into an article though I'm not saying one does or does not exist in this instance. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with BQZip01 that clarity on what is a "significant minority" and how editors determine this would help the many good editors (on both sides) make this article better. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  08:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. It is not possible for the committee to make these decisions on a general basis. It rightly refuses to decide individual content questions. Issuing unambiguous general rules about content is, of course, much harder than deciding a single case. Also keep in mind WP:CREEP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Without a definition of "significant minority" and how it should be applied, this argument will continue unabated. Some sort of definition needs to be in place to direct what should be done about such matters. This is not WP:CREEP. When 2% of the country believes something, it is WP:FRINGE. When 49.9% believe, it is "significant. Where is the dividing line. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which country are you speaking about? And indeed, even if 49.9% of one country believe something, it may still be WP:FRINGE. Public opinion is not a WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quantity of opinion
3) Quantity of opinions found online versus the quantity of opposing opinions should not be used to assert a specific viewpoint as a fact. Doing so constitutes original research.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Though such a discussion clearly emphasizes a point and can used to reach a consensus among Wikipedians, it is not the standard by which declarations of fact are made in Wikipedia. I expect several opposes on this one, but I would like to hear your opinions on the matter.
 * This is a straw man argument, since nobody has said that quantity alone should be used to determine accurate weighting of positions. What is important is both quantity and quality of expert opinion, and here we have a single composite reliable source representing the views of over one hundred US professors of law stating that waterboarding is a form of torture. How many single composite sources are there with the opposing viewpoint, since you are making this argument that quantity of sources is irrelevant? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Comment by others:

Multiple editors with a single voice
1) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. See Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision. Jehochman  Talk 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsure. I like this better than most proposals.  And I suspect that something must be done sometimes.  But generally I think it is a horrible waste of time to worry about meat and sockpuppets.  Instead, just focus on user behavior. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Rules exist to keep this place sane. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of dispute is waterboarding.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ordinary measures insufficient
2) Ordinary measures of community-based dispute resolution have been insufficient to prevent edit warring and disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sock puppetry
3) User:209.221.240.193, User:Shibumi2, User:Neutral Good, the editor who signs as "Bob" and User:BryanFromPalatine appear to be the same individual, .  Additionally, the editing patterns of these accounts are indistinguishable from one another, whether or not they are operated by the same person.

3.1) User:209.221.240.193, User:Shibumi2, User:Neutral Good, and the IP editor who signs as "Bob" appear to be alternate accounts of, or acting as proxies of, User:BryanFromPalatine.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Jehochman  Talk 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Our editing patterns are very easily distinguished. Neither Neutral Good, nor "Bob," nor I have ever edited Free Republic or its Talk page. Someone did edit that article from this IP address nearly a year ago, but not me. Shibumi2 has edited there, but his principal focus seems to be Japanese warships from World War II. All four of us have edited the Talk:Waterboarding page. Bryan was inseparable from the Free Republic article and its Talk page, and never edited the Waterboarding article or its Talk page, or any article about Japanese warships.


 * Shibumi2 is extraordinarily civil and polite, earning praise upon his return from a 24-hour block by the very same people who now seek to ban him. "Bob" and I have had moments when the badgering and baiting just became too much, and we blew our cool; but for the most part, we have also been civil, especially on the Talk:Waterboarding page which is the focus of this dispute. Neutral Good does resemble Bryan's confrontational style about half the time, but there the resemblance ends because he isn't interested in Free Republic.


 * Editors seeking to prove sockpuppetry should stop trying to paper over these obvious distinctions in our editing patterns, and instead try to explain them if you want to prove this case to the Arbitrators' satisfaction. To speak with perfect candor (with apologies to Oscar Wilde), I don't believe you can offer a satisfactory explanation. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As demonstrated already in my evidence section, the "Bob" IP addresses are all over Free Republic. As demonstrated in others' evidence, Shibumi2 is pushing the exact agenda as BryanFromPalatine. Any evidence of additional edits on alternate accounts or linked IPs would be private information that the CUs are already in possession of from their checks. All interactions are relationships between any combination of IPs and usernames, if they exist, would be obviously visible to them, but they also look at behavioral patterns as well, and other "classified" information that is only available to arbiters and Checkusers in the form of private evidence. Not all evidence is necessarily posted in public on the Evidence page. Giving away too much information could allow Sockpuppeteers to know how to evade detection, after all. Lawrence Cohen  19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Those IPs are not "Bob." None of them edited Talk:Waterboarding. What you have there is a different Sprint user. There are millions of them as Neutral Good has pointed out. Shibumi2 does not appear to have the "exact same agenda" as Bryan, but even if the Arbitrators conclude that he does, Shibumi2 pursues that agenda in a manner that is easily distinguished from Bryan's which was very confrontational. If we start blocking people for having the "exact same agenda," we could start with you, Badagnani, Hypnosadist, Jehochman, and Inertia Tensor. That would set a very bad and easily abused precedent. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposing 3.1 as a clearer way to explain. We can never be completely sure of how these are connected, but we can reasonably determine that they are engaging in the same disruptive pattern of editing as if they were the same editor. Jehochman  Talk 04:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 3.1 is extremely dangerous. If it is adopted, anyone who adopts a position that even remotely resembles the position of a blocked editor will be targeted for a ban. Those who disagree with him will seize Proposal 3.1 and try to beat him down with it, as we've seen here with these "Burn the witch" and "Off with his head" attitudes. Conduct which might ordinarily merit a 24-hour block or a final warning will be exaggerated into a permanent ban. People who could be salvaged and turned into constructive Wikipedia editors will be sent away forever. This is counterproductive and mean-spirited in the extreme. Neutral Good (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is already standard policy to deal with abusive meat or sockpuppetry. Proposal reflects accepted practice and procedure. Take it up on the blocking, banning, and sockpuppetry pages if you disagree, or WP:AN to start a discussion on this. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 16:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As expected, Lawrence Cohen chimes in with his "Burn the witch," "Off with his head" attitude. Steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the fact that it is the attitude of Lawrence Cohen, and his tribe of POV warriors, that is principally to blame for the acrimony at Talk:Waterboarding. Since you have persistently ignored it, I will remind you once again that I have survived two checkusers with findings of ❌] both times; an experienced Checkuser admin took one look at this very same evidence against the "209" Ip editor and quickly said ""; and the "cloud of Sprint called Bob" has also been Checkusered with the result of ❌. So it's not "abusive meat or sockpuppetry," and repeating it 1,000 times won't make it true, Lawrence.


 * Failing miserably at your attempt to prove suckpuppetry, you have desperately tried for the "proxy" claim. I suggest to the Arbitrators that in order to prove that a new editor is serving as the proxy of a blocked editor, the new editor must have an agenda that is substantially identical, and I mean virtually indistingishable, from that of the blocked editor. Comparisons of editing style are largely subjective and therefore not valid. The many distinctions between Bryan/Dino and the many editors you are trying to ban for disagreeing with you have been outlined by the "209" IP editor here. I will add that after reviewing (with some disgust) the mess at Free Republic, Bryan/Dino was clearly trying to whitewash the article, and eradicate any trace of negative material. Shibumi2 and Samurai Commuter, the only two editors on that article who are accused of being proxies, have never made that attempt and have expressly rejected it. Neutral Good (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that SC and Shibumi2 both keep trying to insert and push the "Agents... provactatuers" bit that was BryanFromPalatine's personal goal for ages. Why would two unrelated editors from near or in Palatine both be trying to do that? Surely a coincidence. Lets AGF that SC with his non-stop attacks on Eschoir from Day 1, BFP's "archenemy", has no connections to BFP, and that Shibumi2, whose only significant contributions to Free Republic are to push the "Agents... provactatuers" bit while editing from the same geographical region as BFP and while also being a proven Sockpuppeteer per Alison (like BFP) is surely a coincidence. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 16:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you so certain that they're "in or near Palatine"? Samurai Commuter geolocates to the St. Louis area, and Shibumi2 geolocates to the communications nerve center of the midwestern United States. We've been over this. There will be literally millions of people whose IP addresses traceroute through the Chicago area. The fact that neither one of them has tried to whitewash the article, and that one of them has expressly rejected an attempt to whitewash it the way Bryan/Dino tried to do, collapses your case like a house of cards. None of the other accused proxies has ever touched that article. Neutral Good (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is obvious. In order to qualify as a proxy, a new editor's editing pattern must precisely match the blocked editor's agenda and pattern. Otherwise the Arbitration Committee will effectively be making content rulings. For example, if most of the "waterboarding may not be torture" advocates are blocked, and will always be blocked in the future as they arrive, then the "waterboarding is torture" advocates win the content dispute by default. (And that may have been Mr. Cohen's goal all along.) Any position ever taken by a blocked member in the entire history of Wikipedia becomes radioactive, no matter how objectively reasonable that position may be. SC and Shibumi2 haven't tried to whitewash the Free Republic article as Bryan tried to do. They have only recognized some of the material he proposed as having some merit. They shouldn't be banned for that. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hogwash. I've not named a single person except those with demonstrated IP, voice, agenda, or other ties to BryanFromPalatine. If I were after waterboarding "enemies" why didn't I name Walton One, Blue Tie, Randy, or BQZIP? Please. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You got rid of Randy a different way: he became so frustrated at dealing with the obstinate POV-pushing of the "waterboarding is torture" gang that he gave up and left. Whatever works, right? You've brought over all of your friends from Blackwater Worldwide, and rounded up several more like-minded partisans elsewhere. If you can get rid of half the people who disagree with you, the other half will be hopelessly outnumbered. Neutral Good (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Way to urinate on AGF, there. Can we please ban this individual as a completely unproductive and disruptive user now? All of his edits since Day 1 have been either attacking me, or just wild general disruption. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Article probation
1) Waterboarding is placed on article probation for one year.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ban
2) The person operating User:209.221.240.193 to edit waterboarding, User:Shibumi2, User:Neutral Good, and the editor who signs as "Bob", are banned for one year. User:BryanFromPalatine's ban is reset to one year from the date of this decision for abusing multiple accounts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, per common sense. Jehochman Talk 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BryanFromPalatine is actually indef blocked. Lawrence Cohen  17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If nobody is willing to unblock him, then he is community banned. In any case, I have adjusted accordingly. Jehochman  Talk 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Banning is obviously futile. Eschoir (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean we surrender Wikipedia to trolls and POV pushers. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 06:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Controversial subjects
1) Wikipedia users that chose to edit on controversial subjects should do so with the understanding that they are expected to cooperate with editors of other views. While this is true for all articles, the standards are higher on controversial subjects. Repeated use of disruptive argumentation, such as fallacies, combativeness, incivility and a failure to work towards consensus—is prohibited.

1.2) Wikipedia users that chose to edit on subjects with a significant history of dispute on wiki which mirrors a real world conflict, should do so with the understanding that they are expected to cooperate with editors of other views. While this is true for all articles, the standards are higher on these controversial subjects. Repeated use of disruptive argumentation, such as fallacies, combativeness, incivility and a failure to work towards consensus—is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * What is a 'controversial subject'? Evolution is not controversial in my country but would be regarded as such in the United States. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose; I think this is quite dangerous. We should not label editors as "disruptive" for expressing an opinion, even where that opinion is wrong. Yes, editors should ideally try to work towards consensus, but this is an aspiration, not a requirement; we should not sanction users just for vocally disagreeing with the views of others. As to incivility, we already have a perfectly good policy on that which doesn't need to be stated; instances of gross incivility should be, and indeed are, dealt with through normal channels. There's no reason to have a separate policy for "controversial" articles. WaltonOne 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If editors refuse to cooperate with others of other views, then it will be impossible to reach any consensus. This is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Violating it means it will be impossible to create a stable article. All editors should work towards consensus. At some point, editors who disagree and are not backed by the majority of reliable sources must accept that consensus is against them. The same arguments can't be repeated forever. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We must sometimes tell editors to cooperate or leave. Jehochman Talk 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, this is standard and commonplace. Lawrence Cohen  14:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1.2 proposed, in response to comments by Sam Blacketer. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree that people should cooperate. I do not agree that if other people do not perceive cooperation that individual should be banned.  The issue should not be: "Does that editor agree with me?"  But "How does that editor respond on the article itself?".  We should not chill the talk page. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When folks wear out the community's goodwill and patience, they get punted. It is what it is. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reducing heat on the talk page is exactly what is needed - otherwise we end up with a locked article and huge amounts of talk with no progress being made. This is not meant to force agreement among editors, it is meant to eject editors who can't express their opinions civilly and constructively. Their viewpoints would better be represented by other, more constructive voices. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  07:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly expect you to support your own proposal. But the bottom line is that your proposal works to steamroll minority positions. The majority can simply get fed up with them -- they have worn out our goodwill and patience as Lawrence says.  And then, every time one shows up, boot him from the page when you have 4 or 5 who agree and then, constantly, you dominate the page.  By that means, you get rid of the basis for wikipedia... consensus.  You also set up a motivation for people to form cabals to "break" that hold by swarming a page and overwhelming those who presently hold sway and declaring that THEY now have worn out patience and get them booted.  Its a bad idea all around.
 * The standard should not be "does he disagree" but "how does he edit". --Blue Tie (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not and thankfully never will "unanimous" support, and if significantly experienced and trusted users support a stance or viewpoint on Wikipedia, compared to the small minority who do not, odds are there is a good reason for that. This has nothing to do with cabals; it has to do with consensus being "most people view something a certain way, so thats the way it is". This is good and right. This smacks of sour grapes, because as more and more people saw the conflict on the waterboarding page, nearly all "new" people did not side with your preferred stance and take of the content and NPOV opinion. Wikipedia's goal is not to defend minority viewpoints, or views held by small groups of editors. If few editors share a stance, it's their JOB to convince others with compelling arguments and evidence. There is no additional protection owed them. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 08:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have just begun presenting evidence that contradicts this perspective. I will present more later ... I hope tonight but I have a business meeting so I do not know when it will finish and I can get here.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This comment is inaccurate and highly disruptive. Badagnani (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Article probation
2) The Waterboarding article is placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from the article and its talk page by any uninvolved administrator.  Any editor that continues to edit in violation of such a ban may be blocked as specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Variant of probations proposed by Lawrence Cohen and Jehochman. Wording from a recent arbitration case. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs to be elaborated. How do you define a "disruptive" edit? An edit that the nearest admin doesn't like? If you're advocating a wider definition of "disruptive" because of this being a controversial topic, then spell out exactly what "disruptive" means in this instance. If you're just giving it its usual meaning (e.g. 3RR violations, personal attacks etc.) then there's no need for this proposal. WaltonOne 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. From a recent arbitration case. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

NPOV
1) Anyone who says that NPOV demands that we call waterboarding torture has somehow missed the point of NPOV. On any controversial issue, Wikipedia must not take a stand. It is certainly fine (and necessary for NPOV) to discuss that reputable sources have raised the question of whether waterboarding is torture. It may also be fine, depending on what the source says, to say that the source has "alleged" or "claimed" that it is. Or that many commentators have. Or whatever might be the case. But Wikipedia itself can have no opinion on the matter one way or the other.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Inspiration: --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a principle, but at best the (mis-)application of one to a concrete case. I'll comment on the merit further down. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Gefundenes Fressen", I plead guilty. That's why I call it a principle. The crux of the principle is "On any controversial issue, Wikipedia must not take a stand." I hate misquoting. Remember I wrote this essay section. On the charge of misquoting, I plead not guilty. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please reread. I'm not claiming you misquote, but you misapply. Reputable sources have not "raised the question" in this case, they have "unanimously stated". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I read and reread. On the charge of misapplying, I plead not guilty. Well, you're still confusing "very large majority" with "unanimity", and that's the crux of the problem. so (from the principle) "...whatever might be the case" does not equal "unanimously". The issue is very controversial, and you seem only capable to represent one side of the controversy, the overwhelming majority admittedly, but still only one side of the controversy in the lead section of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So what RS's say it is not torture because i have yet to see an expert say its not. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  11:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Please stop misrepresenting the evidence. Several very prominent legal authorities (whom you have dismissed because they happen to hold political office) have stated that waterboarding unequivocally is not torture, or that it is torture in some cases but not in others, or that they are not sure. Meanwhile, 115 astroturfed signatures by left-wing partisans on a form letter are treated as 115 separate experts. This constant misrepresentation of the evidence by the "waterboarding is torture" crowd is one of the hallmarks of this case, and ArbCom should take action against you for this constant misrepresentation. Neutral Good (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note the complete lack of sources for either the astroturfing or "very prominent legal authorities" both here and on talk:waterboarding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of ArbCom taking action against users who misrepresent sources, though--such as, say, editors who deprecate a source as "astroturfing" without providing any evidence of such. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The evidence has been posted repeatedly at Talk:Waterboarding and the related RfC page, with abundant links. It has been ignored. Neutral Good (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If "Wikipedia itself can have no opinion on the matter one way or the other", then how come The Holocaust article says: "The Holocaust... is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews...The persecution and genocide were accomplished in stages."? It doesn't say "Person X says that six million Jews were killed. Person Y disagrees." Instead, it is just stated as fact. How come global warming says: "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." And not "Person X thinks that global warming is the increase in temperature... Person Y disagrees." How come evolution says: "evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. This process causes organisms to change over time." and not "Person X thinks that organisms change over time. Person Y disagrees.".
 * If "Wikipedia must not take a stand", then why are these articles doing the exact opposite of what you say? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "On any controversial issue, Wikipedia must not take a stand.", period. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that all of these other articles are wrong? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't even imply they took a stand. They are not part of this ArbCom. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the quotes from those articles above. They "take a stand" as you put it, by including statements that some people dispute. The way that other articles treat disputed statements is relevant to this ArbCom. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Other stuff exists. Thatg's no excuse for blatantly violating NPOV in the first six words of this article. Neutral Good (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mixed. Do not agree with the principle as worded.  But do agree that wikipedia should avoid taking a non-neutral stand in articles.  Not all disagreements and controversies should be considered significant, but when they are relevant, wikipedia must remain neutral. After all, we cannot even say that Hitler was a bad man. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But note that we do state that he died April 30th, 1945, despite the controversial claim that he was whisked away to his secret south pole base in a UFO and still works towards the 4th Reich. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the key there is that there is no serious dispute that he died April 30th. If there were a serious dispute over this issue, wikipedia should not take a stand on it.--Blue Tie (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Misunderstanding
1) Users like Lawrence Cohen, Stephan Schulz , Chris Bainbridge [and others ... (names and evidence may be inserted here)] assume that NPOV and/or the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia demand that Wikipedia calls waterboarding torture as an (unmitigated) contention in the lead section of the waterboarding article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Note that no ad hominem is intended, I'm trying to demonstrate misapprehension of NPOV policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Lawrence - for me no primarily NPOV, but the very basic principle of an encyclopedia requires stating obvious facts. The fact that waterboarding is torture is attested by oodles of reliable sources. I strongly suggest that anybody interested in this topic checks Talk:Waterboarding and the sub-pages and archives. Sources agreeing that waterboarding is a form of torture include (but are by no means limited to):
 * Tens of peer-reviewed papers in medical and law journals.
 * An open letter signed by 100 US law professors.
 * An open letter signed by 4 former JAGs - one each from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. And yes, they were actual heads of the respective JAG corps, not just members.
 * Statements by victims, CIA members, army counter-terrorism experts, lawyers, and journalists.
 * Statements by various international and human rights organizations.
 * US court decisions, both against US and foreign perpetrators.
 * On the other hand, if I remember correctly there are three non-committal and two opposing sources - all recent, all US-based, and all but one of the non-committal ones self-published, interviews, or similar low-weight opinions.
 * This topic is a political hot potato in the US election year. It is in no way a serious dispute among experts. The level of support is as high or higher as that for existence of the Holocaust, global warming, evolution and possibly even the shape of the earth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * QED. I rest my case. And so forth. BTW, I read Talk:Waterboarding and several of its archives, the RfC, and read many of the questions asked by Lawrence and others on several guidance talk pages and noticeboards (providing some of the replies to such questions myself). That's *exactly* when I came to the idea something in this vein was probably the right way to go. Thanks for confirming the issue is "controversial" (politically controversial is even easier in that sense than scientifically controversial), the principle certainly applies: "On any controversial issue, Wikipedia must not take a stand."--Francis Schonken (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you include short-lived popular or political controversies, you need to rewrite articles on any remotely controversial topic. For examples see above. This goes against many precedents set by ArbCom, against current Wikipedia practice, and against common sense. "Controversy" in this sense has always been interpreted as a controversy amongst the relevant experts and reliable sources, not some disagreement from popular or political opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your idea of "precedents set by ArbCom" is seriously flawed. Here's an ArbCom content ruling concluding that use of temporary sources in a hot current issue is not against core content policy . (side-note: that one got solved) Don't downplay political controversy. It's controversy like any other, and far easier to treat in an encyclopedia than scientific controversy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that case is in any way relevant. No-one says we should not use (con-)temporary sources. However, a strong temporal, geographical and political concentration of the very small number of mostly unreliable sources is strong evidence for fringe views. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Casting of the dispute
2) There is controversy on whether the dispute should be cast as a "scientific", "political", "semantic", "legal", etc. issue. Wikipedians cherry-pick the flavour of the dispute according to their own preference, directly contradicting the NPOV and NOR policies: all sides of a dispute (scientific, political, semantic, legal, etc) should be given fair representation in a Wikipedia article, based on what sources have to say. Involved Wikipedians appear unable to write an article that clearly represents "Scientists say... (ref..)", "From a political view... (ref..)", "In legal terms... (ref..)", "Semantically,... (ref..)", etc.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support as "scientific", "political", "semantic" and "legal" are all different aspects of defining waterboarding as torture. It should be noted all "scientific", "semantic" and "legal" sources say waterboarding is torture and all political sources say its torture bar 2 minor republican politicians who made their comments after it has come out that the republican government has waterboarded people.  <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  11:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Please stop misrepresenting the evidence. Several very prominent legal authorities (whom you have dismissed because they happen to hold political office) have stated that waterboarding unequivocally is not torture, or that it is torture in some cases but not in others, or that they are not sure. Meanwhile, 115 astroturfed signatures by left-wing partisans on a form letter are treated as 115 separate experts This constant misrepresentation of the evidence by the "waterboarding is torture" crowd is one of the hallmarks of this case, and ArbCom should take action against you for this constant misrepresentation. Neutral Good (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No legal authorities have stated that waterboarding is not torture. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not misrepresenting the evidence or dismissing sources on political grounds, no legal opinion says waterboarding is not torture, the sources you provide say they don't know. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  13:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of you: please stop misrepresenting the evidence. Ted Poe is a licensed attorney and US congressman, and has stated unequivocally that waterboarding is not torture. Therefore "No legal authorities have stated that waterboarding is not torture" and "No legal opinion says waterboardintg is not torture" are both false statements. There are several very prominent licensed attorneys, notably Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism Andrew C. McCarthy, former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (and presidential candidate) Rudolph Giuliani, and US Attorney for the Southern District of California Mary Jo White, who have stated that it is torture in some cases but not in others, or that they're not sure. These are all prominent legal authorities. Please stop pretending that they do not exist. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the sources, Rudolph Giuliani does not say waterboarding is not torture, he says if it is like how it is discribed in the "liberal media" then it is torture BUT sometimes the media lies. This is the same with almost all your sources, they don't say what you claim. I could debunk all the sources again but the Arbs should just read the top of the waterboarding article for the discussion of the sources. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist ) 07:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed. This is an attempt at smoke and mirrors. While the dispute surrounding waterboarding has many aspects, the simple recognition of waterboarding as a form of torture is no more a political question than the classification of a hammer as a tool. I think Francis is confusing the larger debate (which is adequately covered in the article in question) with the simple factual description ("Waterboarding is a form of torture..."). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
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.

Cluestick on NPOV
1) Lawrence Cohen, Stephan Schulz, Chris Bainbridge [and others ... (same as in corresponding finding of fact)] are beaten with a cluestick until they understand that nor NPOV nor Wikipedia is an encyclopedia demand that Wikipedia calls waterboarding torture. In fact this Arbitration case can not very well proceed until they do understand – except for investigating the sock/meatpuppet allegations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Read wp:civ Francis Schonken. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  11:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read wp:civ Francis Schonken. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  11:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, no ad hominem intended. In fact I think most parties in this ArbCom case need to come to a similar understanding as a most desirable step forward. This goes as well, maybe even more, for most adherents of the "...(maybe) no torture" camp. Wikipedia does not need to assert, nor even remotely give the impression that it might be wanting to assert, that waterboarding is maybe not torture. Leave the asserting the to the sources. Wikipedia only asserts which relevant source said what. And if these sources contradict, Wikipedia is not trying to overcome the contradiction by pretending that "very large majority" equals "consensus". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, if it's not ad homeinem then don't name people, lest someone swingeth the might cluestick against thee. Jehochman Talk 12:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from being rather offending, this "remedy" is based on wrong assumptions. It would also require the ArbCom to make a content decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. "It would also require the ArbCom to make a content decision." – Well, I'm not sure, and would leave that to the ArbCom. And they might, even if they find it a content decision (which I'm not sure they would), take that decision. Even if they don't, the cluestick would still be needed to solve the case. I mean, after all behavioral issues are solved (which I think there are relatively little in this case even if the alleged sock/meatpuppetry proves twice as bad as currently thought), the issue wouldn't be solved yet at all. I stand by my assessment that the proposed remedy is sound, and will ultimately be needed whatever happens, and takes no wrong assumption as (a) premise(s). Sorry if that makes you feel offended, there was no intention in that sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about: "Users who make deliberately offensive remarks in heated and contentious discussions should be beaten with a cluestick until they understand that their approach is not helpful". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, no offense intended. Did you even read what I wrote? I take offense you apparently didn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal is rather offensive. Accusing several experienced users of misunderstanding a basic policy, and contending that they need to be beaten with a cluestick, is not a constructive approach. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not "accusing" – simply stating bare fact: they do not understand one of the points of basic policy, an aspect of NPOV in this case. If you take offense, hey don't shoot the messenger. I've done my best to make it as less offensive as possible. Note how I turned down the intensity of the language of the first sentence of the principle, compared to the model I used. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you insist on being in sole possession of the "bare facts" shines an interesting light on the depth of your understanding of WP:NPOV. Where did you buy your ACME Truth-O-Meter (tm) again? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Obligatory review of past actions
1) Wikipedians which have shown to misunderstand NPOV in the sense that they think that Wikipedia should make undiluted assertions where such assertions have met substantial controversy in the real world, can be forced, by any uninvolved administator, to compose on (a subpage of) their user talk page a list of examples of their edits that are thus misrepresenting the NPOV policy. Failing that, other remedies and enforcement as agreed upon in this ArbCom case can be applied.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * wp:civ <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * wp:civ <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * ...or whatever helps in a better understanding of how a slight misunderstanding of Wikipedia's core NPOV policy can lead to an out of control problem, escalated up to ArbCom, where direct content rulings are out of order. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This suggestion is without precedent and without any imaginable merit. It also requires the ArbCom to decide content questions - how else can the NPOV question be decided? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Without precedent", probably. Merits? Don't know, gladly leave that to the Arbs. Re content decisions, see above, my reply in remedies section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After the cluestick beating, you're going to make them write "I must not violate NPOV" 100 times on the blackboard? Add "condescending" to "offensive". --Akhilleus (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't think that would be helpful, I mean: neither the blackboard, nor your ridiculing a constructive attempt by a condescending attitude. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You think you're being constructive? I would say you're just baiting other editors. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chris Bainbridge; I don't see how your proposals are constructive at all. A constructive approach would start from the realization that your interpretation of NPOV might not be correct, and that you and the users you think should be beaten have a sincere disagreement about its application in this matter. Then, perhaps, you can understand that I think your proposals are high-handed and condescending. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support if I can then nominate my compulsory essay for WP:Featured Degradings. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 05:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, ridiculing won't help. Lawrence, I appreciate your way of handling things in general. I did read most of the discussion as I said above, and again that made me appreciate you, and again I want to excuse myself for naming your name first in the FoF above. There's no contempt or whatever, nor disrespect for your point of view nor your way of handling issues, just thinking that an important point on encyclopedia-writing must be understood. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that some sort or "POV warrior" template should be designed for people like Lawrence Cohen, Hypnosadist, Inertia Tensor and Badagnani, placed at the top of their User and User Talk pages as part of enforcement of ArbCom, and subject to removal only by admins after an annual review. Much more effective than Francis Schonken's proposal, although I do understand why he suggested it. Neutral Good (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reliable sources
1) Wikipedia articles should be based on the best available sources. These include in particular peer-reviewed articles and the considered opinion of qualified experts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  11:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reject I would support if it stopped at "Best Available Sources".  I would probably not object if it stopped at "Peer-reviewed articles". I object to the "considered opinion of qualified experts" as being the best sources of anything except OPINION of qualified experts, and that is ALL it is.  It should not be taken as a fact. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. High quality sources such as peer-reviewed sources and "considered opinion of qualified experts" should be preferred over other sources. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  08:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. High quality sources such as peer-reviewed sources and "considered opinion of qualified experts" should be preferred over other sources. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  08:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. This is already implied in WP:V and WP:RS. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Domain of intercourse
1) The question wether waterboarding is torture is not a political, but a semantic question.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support; external national politics are meaningless to us and should be absolutely ignored at all times as a factor in what we write. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 06:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reject Since politics and semantics are intertwined, this is a bit like declaring "whether the note "middle A" is a tone is not a musical but a perceptual question.--Blue Tie (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Political vs. legal definitions
2) The question wether waterboarding is legally classified as torture is not a political, but a legal question.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  11:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously true. The question whether something is legal is a legal question.  A tautology like this, is irrelevant to this ARBCOM case. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:NOR
3) Deriving the statement "Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a victim on his back, preferably head slightly down, covering his breathing passages with some semi-permeable material, and pouring water over it, with the effect that the gag reflex makes breathing impossible. It is, in other words, a technique of slow, controlled asphyxiation. Minor variations are possible in how the victim is immobilized, what material is used (and if it only covers the face, is wrapped around the head, or even partially inserted into the mouth) and what synonyms are used (where "water cure" is also used for an unrelated technique and "water torture" is a very generic term)." from these sources is not original research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed to establish if a simple synopsis of multiple reliable sources is acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI
1) Users involved in serious previous conflict with the subject of an article have a conflict of interest. For that reason, they should not edit the article about that subject, or any related pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. See Evidence page. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Unclear or irrelevant. How can you be "in conflict" with Waterboarding? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Motion 2.1: "All the allegations made by User:Samurai Commuter in the recent request for clarification will be posted on the Evidence page and the Committee will consider evidence and render a decision on the alleged WP:COI problem of User:Eschoir at Free Republic. Eschoir and Lawrence Cohen should be blocked immediately for edit warring and CANVASS violations." Shibumi2 has posted Samurai Commuter's allegations on the Evidence page. If this motion is granted, Eschoir's misconduct and COI problem at Free Republic will be taken within the remit of this ArbCom proceeding, and it will be very, very relevant. Neutral Good (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative process
2) Administrative process, such as Checkuser requests, sockpuppet investigations, WP:3RR inquiries and WP:ANI requests, can be used in an oppressive manner to harass other editors when the source of the dispute is actually a content dispute. This is abuse of administrative process and subject to sanctions, up to and including a ban from Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

has generally edited in an appropriate manner
1) has generally edited in an appropriate manner, and Checkuser inquiries have confirmed that this is not a sockpuppet account. A previous accusation that Shibumi2 had engaged in sockpuppetry was sufficiently addressed by the Wikipedia community and the matter is now closed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Checkuser cannot establish that an account is not a sockpuppet, much less a meatpuppet. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think an official RFCU finding of ❌ or would be sufficient for that. Neutral Good (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You think wrongly. All that such a finding establishes is a lack of evidence. It's not positive evidence at all. Experienced puppeteers can easily foil Checkuser. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then once we get an official RFCU finding of ❌ or, or an RFCU Admin's decision to say "," I'd like to introduce you to a page called WP:AGF and another called Occam's razor. You should try it sometime. It could do you a whole lot of good. Neutral Good (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm discussing original claim ("confirmed"). Have you changed the topic? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

has abused administrative process
2) has abused administrative process by repeated Checkuser requests, sockpuppet investigations, WP:3RR inquiries and WP:ANI requests, used in an oppressive manner to harass other editors when the source of the dispute is actually a content dispute on the Waterboarding article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wheres the evidence? <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Spread all over WP:RFCU and WP:ANI. It's impossible to miss. Neutral Good (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

has harassed Shibumi2
3) By following Shibumi2 from the Waterboarding article to the Free Republic article and engaging in an edit war there with Shibumi2, has harassed him.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence? <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Spread all over the recent edit history of Free Republic. It's impossible to miss. Neutral Good (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

has a conflict of interest on Free Republic and related pages
4) Due to his serious external conflict with the administrators of the FreeRepublic.com forum, has a serious conflict of interest. This prevents him from being capable of editing Free Republic and related pages in an unbiased and neutral manner.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is not about FreeRepublic, nor is it seriously connected to it. A conflict, external or not, cannot establish a COI on an unrelated topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Motion 2.1: "All the allegations made by User:Samurai Commuter in the recent request for clarification will be posted on the Evidence page and the Committee will consider evidence and render a decision on the alleged WP:COI problem of User:Eschoir at Free Republic. Eschoir and Lawrence Cohen should be blocked immediately for edit warring and CANVASS violations." Shibumi2 has posted Samurai Commuter's allegations on the Evidence page. If this motion is granted, Eschoir's misconduct and COI problem at Free Republic will be taken within the remit of this ArbCom proceeding, and it will be very, very relevant. Neutral Good (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
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.

Lawrence Cohen is banned from the Waterboarding article
1) Lawrence Cohen is banned from the Waterboarding article and all related pages, due to his abuse of administrative process. He is also blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 30 days due to his harassment of Shibumi2.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. There is no evidence of abuse. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Two different RFCU requests producing findings of ❌ or an RFCU Admin's response of . Constant threats and bullying on the Talk:Waterboarding page. At least three different threads at WP:ANI over what is essentially a content dispute, when Lawrence Cohen's own fellow travelers are the ones who are pushing their POV the hardest and reverting the most frequently. The content dispute has been used as an excuse for America-bashing, and American editors have responded in a predictable fashion: by quitting the article, quitting the entire Wikipedia project, or responding in a less than perfectly civil manner. Strike the poisonous tree at its root. Neutral Good (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen those RFCU results quoted many times. Let me assure you, that checkuser does not prove innocence.  A puppetmaster who owns a few computers or cell phones, or who works at an office, can easily produce the results we're observing here. Jehochman  Talk 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Completely without merit. Also, blocks are not punitive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But blocks are protective. In this case, a block would protect Shibumi2 from further harassment by Lawrence Cohen. Shibumi2 is a productive editor and should be left alone, so that he can continue to be productive. Neutral Good (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir is banned from the Free Republic article
2) Eschoir is banned from the Free Republic article and all related pages due to his conflict of interest. He is also blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 30 days due to his edit warring and disruptive behavior on Free Republic and its Talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Irrelevant. Eschoir is not even a named party in this arbitration. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)\
 * See Motion 2.1: "All the allegations made by User:Samurai Commuter in the recent request for clarification will be posted on the Evidence page and the Committee will consider evidence and render a decision on the alleged WP:COI problem of User:Eschoir at Free Republic. Eschoir and Lawrence Cohen should be blocked immediately for edit warring and CANVASS violations." Shibumi2 has posted Samurai Commuter's allegations on the Evidence page. If this motion is granted, Eschoir's misconduct and COI problem at Free Republic will be taken within the remit of this ArbCom proceeding, and it will be very, very relevant. Neutral Good (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we posting on behalf of banned users like Commuter? That's a no-no. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignoring perfectly good evidence because the most trigger-happy admin at Wikipedia found the person who presented it to be disruptive should also be a no-no. Furthermore, Samurai Commuter was not "banned." He was blocked. That block could be overturned. Neutral Good (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see if a non-disruptive party will present the evidence. Jehochman Talk 00:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Shibumi2 disruptive? How about SirFozzie? He's made references to Eschoir's COI. Is SirFozzie disruptive? Neutral Good (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. No. References are not evidence. No, again. Cheers, Jehochman Talk 00:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if you consider Shibumi2 to be disruptive, that does not forbid him from presenting evidence or seeking an ArbCom remedy. Even a paroled murderer has a right to seek the protection of the law when he's been robbed. Neutral Good (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: