The following statements were made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration during the accept/decline stage, by editors with an opinion on the matter at hand, but not named as a Party. The statements are available for review below. Anthøny 15:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I mentioned some of these people as being involved. Nescio and Chris Bainbridge are notable in this list as two who were actually involved. They are not able to be included per the note on the main page, but they should be. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although not named I have been part of the discussion presented above, but have not edited the article AFAIK, and would like to share my thoughts on this. Coming to ArbCom seems premature at this point, as formal mediation would be the logical next step. However, should the case be accepted I think a summary of what has happened is helpful. So, here we go.

There is certainly something amiss on this article, where editors want to state waterboarding is a form of torture. (Clearly, some guidance as to how to interpret and apply WP:ASF, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CON seems to be in order) Opposing that sentence, claiming a widespread dispute, there have been numerous incidents involving sockpuppetry, SPA's, sudden influx of outside contributors, that apparently discussed the matter and reached a position prior to getting involved. (These incidents would be one of the mysteriously coincidental parts of the debate that needs attention clarfying possible sinister motives.) During the debate I noticed that some editors have missed the numerous rebuttals of the there is a dispute-fallacy. Unfortunately they are also unable to find them on the talk-page and the RFC. Still trying to abide by WP:AGF I repost a summary of that discussion here.

1. A 147 (92%) legal experts (including several judicial rulings) say it is torture, 4 (3%) experts say it is not, 8 (5%) are unable/unwilling to make any determination. AFAIK nobody disagrees with this, see RFC for details.
2. The following logic has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" confronted with a dissenting expert voice, even if it is just only one lone wolf, we effectively have a dispute. This, of course, is nonsens. If the existence of any opposition could negate consensus among experts they would still be debating the way our earth is shaped, what causes AIDS, is evolution real, did the Holocaust happen, are aliens experimenting on us, et cetera. Clearly that is not the case. Therefore, opposition by a very small group of experts does not a dispute make.
3. Within the US 1/3 think it is not torture and 2/3 think it is. AFAIK nobody disputes this, see RFC for details.
4. The following logic has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" since US public opinion is split 2:1 this evidently constitutes a dispute. Although very interesting and certainly notable public opinion is irrelevant to what experts think on this. Public opinion has brought us such notable and successful concepts as the facts of 9/11, antisemitism, facism, McCarthyism, superstition, quackery, witchhunt, mucoid plaque, holocaust denial, scam, et cetera. Confronted with the evident unreliability the world developed a new concept in an attempt to better explain the world in a more unbiased and unlikely to be manipulated manner. Soon it was discovered this new way of explaining things was far superior than the frequently incorrect gut feeling that was used before. With that knowledge relying on public opinion became a logical fallacy. So, using public opinion as argument is not a valid rebuttal but people keep refusing to answer why public opinion, in determining the legalities involved, is more important than expert opinion.
5. Some argue that determining whether waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture, i.e. UNCAT, is a socio-political question.Clearly somebody does not understand that whenever we have to establish whether an individual violated the law, i.e. tax fraud, rape, murder, torture, et cetera, we do not go out in the street and ask the general public. What I think editors attempt to say is that the possibility of allowing torture under certain circumstances is a socio-political debate. Thinking on it, it is self-evident that a legal determination the US engaged in war crimes, factually correct or not, has political consequences. Hence the lack of international zeal to take up cases invoking universal jurisdiction. Possibly this is what is meant with the socio-political part of the argument.added afterthought Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Then people argue that the sources themselves are wrong, i.e. conflating definitions. Surely everybody is aware that it is not up to us to evaluate and correct sources. Please remember, it is not whether information is correct but can we verify it?
7. Others claim that even if waterboarding is torture the technique used by the CIA is entirely different.Unless we can substantiate this with outside sources it is inadmissable as speculation by a WP-editor. Also, even if it were true, it should not have a major impact on an article detailing the history, which starts >500 years before 9/11, and its use by more than just the CIA.
8. Yet another argument advanced in this debate is that people are unable to define expert in this context. Highly dubious position because if the article were called rape, homicide, tax fraud, et cetera, I wonder if anyone would be unable to think of what constitutes an expert. Surely nobody argues we should ask the general public whether individual X violated any of these examples. The fact we have an activity that could implicate a US administration in authorising war crimes does not alter the legal basis for the question: does waterboarding meet the definition of torture?added this point Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this clarifies the reasons why any opposition to it is torture is insufficiently substantiated with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and common sense in mind. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, the summary is intended to better understand the content dispute. The question to ArbCom is not to arbitrate that but to explain to us how to interpret and apply WP:ASF, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:CON as it pertains to this article. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is quite good, and we easily could do worse than simply freezing the article til hell freezes over. Both evidence and logic indicate some people are pushing a non-neutral non-evidence-based POV. Everyone agrees waterboarding is part of an interrogation technique. What part? Is it the question? the answer? the reward for cooperating? No, it is obviously a punishment, a threat of pain, an actual pain. How much pain, how big a punishment? How do you measure that? Maybe by how fast it works? 14 seconds is how fast. How much punishment, how severe a punishment needs to be to qualify as torture seems a less relevant a question to some than who is doing what to who. If George Bush authorized something to be done to a terrorist, it obviously is not torture - too good for them if they lived is what it was - can't be torture. Writing neutral encyclopedia articles requires a certain level of emotional distancing. Contributors who show difficulty with doing that need to be told their emotional COI is not helpful to the goals of this WikiMedia project regarding the content of this article, but thanks for trying. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on WP:RSN asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve Free Republic somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.

I also agree that this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of the various waterboarding techniques as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to interminable AN/I threads on the issue, I proposed a solution here which would involve temporarily topic-banning what I viewed to be one of the worst offenders, a single-purpose POV-pushing tendentious agenda account, as a first step. There was some support, but some involved parties objected and things ended up here.

It's a mess. I would prefer to see it handled by the community, via topic bans and informal article probation, but that solution may not have the legitimacy that an ArbCom mandate would have. I don't think this is a job for mediation - there's a likely IP sock of a banned editor heavily involved as well as some agenda-driven SPA's, and they often don't lend themselves particularly well to mediation. I'd urge ArbCom to accept this - it's a clear user-conduct case occurring on top of a content dispute. If the case is rejected, then there needs to be a real, significant community-based intervention. Otherwise we may just as well protect the article indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been involved in this dispute or editing this article in any way up to now, but I've reviewed its history in response to its appearance here so that an independent view can be provided. I agree entirely with MastCell's comments above and support a referral to the Arbitration Committee. There is a content dispute here, but the main reason it's not being resolved satisfactorily is because of a number of editors seeking to impose their own particular POV - in some cases through rather obvious sockpuppetry - instead of trying to reach a good-faith consensus. The logjam on this article can best be resolved by tackling the conduct issues that have made the content issues impossible to solve so far. The number of editors involved make it unlikely that individual admins or the community at large can resolve this satisfactorily, so the ArbCom's involvement would seem to be the best way of achieving this goal. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the Committee accept this case, not to address the content dispute, but with a view to providing for conditions under which this article can be productively edited again, such as article probation. I don't know whether there is indeed any sockpuppetry or other concerted disruption going on, but if there is, the Committee is best positioned to authoritatively determine and sanction it. It is not helpful, however, to present the content dispute as a conduct issue by phrasing it in terms of OR, NPOV and assorted other content policy violations. These arguments are just the inevitable consequence of the content dispute and are accordingly unsuited to be addressed through the arbitration process. (My involvement with the article is limited to reviewing a good article nomination in December, and, I think, one or two protected edit requests.) Sandstein (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in this discussion, but was never informed of ArbCom. Given the sheer volume of the discussion, I really don't mind so much, but I wish I had been notified and no malice is assumed unless proven otherwise (I don't expect that to even be possible). IMHO, the problem resides in individual (not individual users, per se, but moreso individual cited people) views of what constitutes torture. Those opinions are present in individual user interpretations and tend to color the discussion accordingly. That said, the basic technique is what should really be emphasized here, not a legal definition (since laws vary from country to country). That its status is disputed should definitely be included in the article and proclamations of its status as "torture" should be avoided. There are lots of things permitted under the Geneva Conventions that U.S. police cannot do; as an example: keeping prisoners awake for 20 hours of every day allowing only 4 nonconsecutive hours of sleep. Some organizations and governments believe this constitutes torture. It certainly isn't permitted in any state in the US, but (and this is the distinction that continues to be missed) it isn't "torture" under the Geneva Conventions. The same goes for this technique. Labeling it as an interrogation technique is certainly factual. Stating that it is not permitted by DoD personnel is certainly factual, but drawing a conclusion that it is illegal and/or is "torture" is not the job of Wikipedia. United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once proclaimed about porn (rather ineptly IMHO), "I'll know it when I see it." With all due respect to Wikipedians, you aren't the Supreme Court and it is not up to you to decide. That there is controversy regarding a subject needs to be addressed. There should be no absolute proclamations on its status. I truly hope the ArbCom decides to review this and I look forward to their decision. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be a good opportunity to apply lessons learned from the Great Irish Famine and "The Troubles" ArbCom cases, and set up a system where tendentious edit warriors can be placed on probation. I made such a suggestion during the most recent ANI discussion,, but there was some question if we needed an ArbCom finding to do so. Looking at the protection log of the article, figuring out the main edit-warriors on either side and putting them on Probation should reduce future concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the "bitten" Harvard Law students (although not new to Wikipedia, I am entirely new to disputes/RfCs, etc) I am still hesitant to mistep, having been warned that a lack of thorough knowledge of procedures and social norms makes me incompetent to express my views. If this is the case, I apologize. However, since I do have an opinion on the matter and my name has been mentioned, I will give it my best shot.

The more I read the sources linked, the more I am starting to believe that the truth lies somewhere quite close to the line of opinion v. fact. Hence, the closness of the call on content itself has made this a difficult issue to resolve, leading to stalls in the consensus process. From my budding knowledge of WP policies, I do agree that WP:BITE and WP:OWN problems are exacerbating the process; indeed some editors managed to drive me away from voicing my own views until I received an influx of differing opinions.

It does appear to me that the chaotic nature of the talk and comments page is also stalling the process. Several attempts at organizing the sources and clarifying the question have blended into a mess of accusations and other commentary. The former teacher in me wants to believe that a coherent attempt at organization could give us a clearer picture of what we're dealing with, and I suspect the possibility that a few focal voices are making it hard to assess what the weight of consensus really is. However, the future lawyer in me has the cynical suspicion that the current state of disaray might defeat further attempts to clarify and asess the bigger picture. I'm afraid my lack of familiarity with the mediation procedure leaves me unable to weigh in on whether that would help.-Lciaccio (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute wasn't described properly in the beginning. Whereas it's been called "Waterboarding is/is not torture," I think it's really whether "waterboarding is torture" or whether it's "widely considered torture." The distinction seems subtle but it amounts to a political statement.

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

A word on sources: Most of the oft-noted "140+ legal experts" who say it's always torture seem to be ideologues. I see many political views in that list that are not simply moderate-left; they're further from the mainstream than that. While theirs is a notable opinion, it's a biased one. But even if you agree with them, which is perfectly fine with me, it's still an opinion.

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

This, on an encyclopedia that's not supposed to call Saddam Hussein a bad guy.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that no matter how this works out, someone should clarify the guidelines in WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page, but am not currently named at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding. Personality conflicts aside, I still think this is a simple content issue. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. Wikipedia should not state that waterboarding is torture, and Wikipedia should not state that waterboarding is not torture. We should describe the actual procedure, and we should report the opinions and judgments of others (about whether it's torture and any other relevant opinions). We should not ourselves describe it as torture, because that is fundamentally not NPOV. Superm401 - Talk 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also edited the page, but am not currently named at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding.

There seem to be two issues here:

• a content dispute, with good and reasoned contributions from editors on both sides of the argument, that seems to be slowly trying to resolve the issue in good faith. This dispute centers on a single point: in balancing two principles within the NPOV policy, does the presence of the very visible and public controversy over waterboarding override the apparent strong consensus in the world of expert opinion? [*]

• apparent uncompromising aggressive sockpuppeteering from a contributor or closely related group of contributors who are determined to "win" the discussion by attrition, regardless of how long it takes them to wear down all other contributors, that is preventing all attempts to achieve a resolution in the above, whether by compromise or by consensus.

I don't believe the first is an appropriate issue for arbitration, nor does it -- of itself -- need it.

However, I do believe that the second issue is a valid candidate for arbitration; if this could be resolved, the first should be able to resolve itself in the normal way.

I find the arguments in Black Kite's statement and Lawrence Cohen's various pages quite persuasive, and I would appreciate further analysis of this, given that, if they are true, there has been a deliberate attempt to frustrate checkuser monitoring.

[*] (For the avoidance of doubt, my view on the content dispute itself is that (to quote User:Akhilleus) "[t]he 'controversy' here is similar to global warming, where there is a robust consensus among experts, but dispute among politicians, pundits, and the public at large. But our encyclopedia entries are supposed to be based on expert opinion.")

-- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is a symptom of a bigger problem at Wikipedia , which is that while WP:AGF is a perfectly correct guideline for editors to follow when dealing with other individual editors, it fails as a guiding principle when setting policy, and during dispute resolution, is far too liberally applied to those who fail to abide by policy (by which I mean to say that ArbCom sanctions are far too lenient, generally). There are in reality large numbers of editors who are not editing in good faith; there are in reality large numbers of editors who use Wikipedia as a battleground to score political points. Wikipedia's failure to deal with this reality is what leads to silly and massively time-wasting disputes such as this one. Dlabtot (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "involved" and do not want to be, especially in light of htom's observation that:

people are being "threatened" with CheckUser, ArbCom, blocking, ... and reacting badly to this

However, if there really is a question - in the minds of writers and other parties outside of Wikipedia - about whether waterboarding is torture - then clearly according to WP:NPOV we cannot take one side of this question.

Now, personally, I think it's torture - but my opinion is irrelevant because I am not a notable person. If 95% of experts agree with that viewpoint, then this is not enough for Wikipedia to endorse the view. Rather, Wikipedia should say that 95% of experts endorse the view.

It is not the job of a neutral encyclopedia to determine which side is right.

Please do not refuse to hear this matter, on the grounds that it is a "content dispute". It is a special kind of content dispute, which strikes at the heart of what NPOV really means.

Is Wikipedia to be the arbiter of truth? Or is Wikipedia merely supposed to indicate the existence and extent of a controversy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]