Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence

message: Discussion about evidence, below. AGK (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

message: Please note that Bryan's socks here and elsewhere have often claimed to be Liberals or Neutral as some googling on "Bryan Hinnen" will show you...  --BenBurch (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral Good's statements appear to be Red herrings, because they do not accord with the editing pattern.  Additionally, the idea that User:209.221.240.193 is actually lots of different people does not make sense.  There is very little to suggest any difference in writing style, areas of interest or point of view.  If in fact 17,000 were using that IP address to access the internet, we would expect a diversity of opinions and styles.  We don't see that.  Jehochman  Talk 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not necessarily true, Jehochman, There may be 17,000 (or 24,750) using that IP address to access the Internet. But only a few, or a few dozen, might have used it to edit Wikipedia without registering an account. Neutral Good's statements are not red herrings, because Neutral Good has never edited Free Republic or its Talk page and never will. Freepers are homophobic neanderthals. Neutral Good (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And those few are all interested in the same set of articles and edit with the same voice and same political point of view?  Please stop making rude comments about the Freepers.  That's not going to impress anyone.  Can you show me any edits where you have reverted Freeper POV pushing? Jehochman  Talk 14:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "same political point of view" looks like NPOV to me, with regards to the Waterboarding article. Regarding your claim that they edit the "same set of articles," I don't believe that Clemson University, Claude-Jean Allouez‎, Molybdenum, Value Stream Mapping, Free Republic, Strouhal Number, Marfan Syndrome, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus‎, Waterboarding, Telex Communications, Michigan Technological University‎, and Piezoelectricity could reasonably be described as a consistent set of interests. That set of articles represents the interests of several people. Neutral Good (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV interpretation is fundamentally disagreed upon, hence this RFAR. As for interests... Just like my most frequently edited articles are Storm botnet, Blackwater Worldwide, 2007 Peruvian meteorite event, Joe Szwaja, List of portable software, Waterboarding, Bezhin Meadow, Ballard Carnegie Library, Blackwater Worldwide arms smuggling allegations, Erik Prince, Andrew J. Moonen, Ballard Avenue Historic District, Juddmonte Farms, Krzyżtopór, Megan Meier suicide controversy, and Three Gorges Dam. Are those the interests of just one person or multiple? Private armies, historic foreign cinema, space sciences, interests near where I grew up long ago, horse breeding/racing, Poland, and large scale civil engineering topics. Whats your point? A lone person can have multiple interests, and always does in real life. There are no Single-Purpose Accounts in real life. Only on Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It appears to me, Lawrence, that you are an unusual case. You have far more time on your hands to edit Wikipedia than the average person and seem capable of doing 100 edits a day. You have a broad range of interests. Most people aren't like that. Neutral Good (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Argument in the third person like that is something you lawyers learn, Dino.  --BenBurch (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Evidence provided by User:Neutral Good 

message: Here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. Lawrence Cohen 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add this to evidence. Why isn't Samurai Commuter blocked yet as a sock?  Jehochman  Talk 14:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I noticed that one overlap, but otherwise there is no interleaving.  This points to one puppetmaster more than separate users.  A clever puppetmaster can generate a small number of simultaneous edits from different IPs by using remote desktop, or by having more than one Internet connection (e.g. Cellular and Landline).  Jehochman  Talk 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consult Occam's Razor. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have investigated further and determined that it is unlikely that Neutral Good = Samurai Commuter. Jehochman  Talk 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More evidence they're all BFP 

message: I think some of the administrators with checkuser privilege might consider that some of the IP service being used by this apparent box of socks may be stolen from others who are unaware that their machines are being so used.  If this is found to be the case, what would policy be, other than blocking that address?  A friend in law enforcement pointed out that there is a large list of open proxies at a Russian site and that he knows that criminals routinely use that list to conduct business, changing proxies frequently.  And at least some of those proxies are undoubtedly not intentional on the part of their hosts.  --BenBurch (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Illegality? 

message: I had set out to refactor that page a few weeks ago, but until the socks can be dealt with, there is not much point to it.  :-(  --BenBurch (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like more issues over on the FR page. 

message: I asked my law enforcement friend more about that russian proxy list.  Here it is;  http://www.samair.ru  It is an ever changing list of open proxies that you can connect to with firefox just by changing its proxy settings.  You do not have to even change your OS settings that effect IE or Safari when you do this because FF maintains its own.  Then you can have two browsers open at once on a single machine and post from both with the same timecode.  Note that some of the proxies on this list are legitimate, in that they are intentional, but many are just some poor SOB that had his machine compromised by a bot or by his own mis-handling and which were discovered by IP scanners.
I strongly recommend that the people in charge of Open Proxy Blocking add all the IPs on this list NOW and revisit this list frequently as it seems to change hourly. --BenBurch (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proxies Galore! 

message: You know, I'll happily perform waterboarding on anybody who insists it is not torture.  Then when I've had my way with you for a few hours, or days, you can make an actually informed determination on the subject.  (But sadly, it will be Original Research...)  I promise it won't hurt ME a bit!  --BenBurch (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the subject of whether Waterboarding is torture. 

message: Is anyone able to rebut  my evidence that these two accounts never edit at the same moment in time, most likely because they are controlled by one person? Jehochman  Talk 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to go out on a limb here and say no. Shibumi2 has a pretty stable timeframe for editing as well as Neutral Good. The fact that a checkuser was run during and picked up Shibumi2 and not Neutral Good explicitly helps me lean towards no. The fact that Shibumi2 has left editing the waterboarding article and back to the usual ships/FR article pattern pretty much tells me s/he is unrelated or a really good sleeper. These facts together provide enough evidence of doubt for me at least in regards to him. His English patterns also differ quite a bit from the people he has been linked to. At this point, all the evidence against him or her is pretty circumstantial and he would be a hell of a sleeper he is one. Since he got blatantly caught, I doubt that is the case. spryde | talk 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think that confirmation bias is starting to come into play and everybody is seeing things they want to see. Take a step back and take a look at both most benign explanation and most sinister explanation and see what is more likely. spryde | talk 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why these things need to be done in the open.  Thank you for your comments. Jehochman  Talk 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing bothers me.  How can these two editors go on for a month, where one or the other edits during the same 18:00 - 02:00 timeframe, but never both at the same time.  Are they calling each other on the phone to decide who is going to edit, or is there some other reason they both never appear at the same time?  How do we explain that?  The probability of this happening by chance is rather small, maybe 1 in 1000. Jehochman  Talk 04:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither one of us edits every day. Both of us can go for weeks, and in Shibumi2's case even months without editing. Then there's a burst of activity, with 10 or 12 edits within a span of half an hour, or one hour, or two hours. With editing patterns like these, the probability of this happening by chance is better than 50/50. Neutral Good (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Observers may review the evidence and form their own conclusions.  Jehochman  Talk 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Meatpuppetry=sockpuppetry.  Remember remote users. 
Would sure like to see Samurai Commuter's times added to your table. Eschoir (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I will do that.  The table exists in Excel, and I found the tool that converts spreadsheets to wikitables.  If you would like a copy there's a link on my userpage. Jehochman  Talk 04:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you know that I am looking for interleaving, it is easy to demonstrate. Jehochman  Talk 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example using my declared alternate account. Jehochman2 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I will check the month of December to see if there is any interleaving there, before anybody knew that we would be looking for this. Jehochman  Talk 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point in arguing because maybe evidence will appear to disprove the hypothesis. Jehochman2 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just so. Jehochman  Talk 14:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just what I thought. You're rationalizing/Wikilawyering your way out of it. Neutral Good (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All users are reminded of the standards of civility that are being upheld on this page. Editors who repeatedly disrupt this page with personal attacks and overly-heated discussion may be banned from this page, and/or blocked from editing. AGK (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, and even if sock puppetry and meat puppetry are not involved, if users are being disruptive, they too can be banned from locus of disruption.  I have no problem with Shibumi2 editing other articles where they do not cause disruption.  Jehochman  Talk 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral good has announced a wikibreakEschoir (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All parties are reminded a final time about the basic standards of civility that are expected, and are being upheld, on this page. Any editors who engage in disruptive communications, a practice incivility, or make use of personal attacks or unfriendly language will be prohibited from editing this page, and may be blocked from editing. AGK (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Good = Shibumi2?