This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Request for Checkuser[edit]

1) A large number of IP addresses is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis, which edit from Ellis' ISP in a characteristic Ellis-like manner, including the vandal IPs listed above. Mackensen deferred the checkuser request to Arbcom pending the opening of this case. Due to the time it took to open the case, some of the relevant log data may be in danger of disappearing. Recommend that the arbitrators run any checks needed for this case ASAP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noted. Checks may also be appropriate on the Kinsella side of the dispute but I was only involved in the vandalism of RFCU by the Ellis side so I do not have any requests or recommendations for the Kinsella side. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Thatcher's proposal that we need a report from CheckUser Bucketsofg✐ 13:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, I await vindication. Pete Peters 14:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Arbitration for Lack of Interest[edit]

1) This arbitration be abandoned because (a) none of the parties except Arthur Ellis appear to be willing or interested in discussing the actual edits to the article and (b) most of the people involved in editing the article (HistoryBA, Crazyrussian, RadioKirk Geedubber, CJCurrie) have failed to present evidence or show interest in the project. As well, I rarely bother editing Wikipedia anymore. Arthur Ellis 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Temporary injunction Arthur Ellis[edit]

1) Arthur Ellis has just been caught using socks to violate 3RR at Rachel Marsden. I propose a temporary injunction from editing the articles listed as affected in this case. Bucketsofg✐ 14:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

1) Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground prohibits importation of personal disputes. It is grossly inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a venue for pursuit of a personal political battle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biographies of living persons[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be adequately sourced and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Maybe Bucketsofg would like to show us how. since he's worked so hard on Rachel Marsden.

Comment by others:

Keeping our eye on the ball[edit]

3) in an instance where one user has engaged in outrageous behavior which has resulted in others also engaging in minor violations, the focus of an arbitration case will be on the one who caused the trouble; on the presumption that the other users can carry on in a more or less satisfactory way if the main problem is dealt with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I was under the impression this was about the edits to Warren Kinsella. Is this a purge of "troublemakers"?Arthur Ellis 15:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editing your own article[edit]

4) Wikipedia:Autobiography, a guideline, offers advice to persons who are the subject of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of the dispute is editing of the articles concerning [Warren Kinsella]] and other figures prominent in the Canadian political blogosphere. There is some evidence that the principals in this matter are themselves participants in the Canadian political blogosphere, especially Mark Bourrie. The dispute between these two gentlemen involved legal actions concerning alleged libel [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If this is based on the presumption that I am Mark Bourrie, this statement is wrong.Arthur Ellis 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Socks of Arthur Ellis[edit]

2) There is substantial evidence that Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who previously edited as Mark_Bourrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ceraurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ,has also edited as Marie_Tessier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Isotelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous sockpuppets Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#First_Assertion:_rampant_sock.2Fmeat-puppetry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Your "substantial evidence" is, in fact, insubstantial and incorrect. I have not edited as Ceraurus or Mark Bourrie Arthur Ellis 13:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mark Bourrie[edit]

2) Mark Bourrie is a Canadian blogger [2]. Involved in an ongoing dispute with Warren Kinsella. He has, in addition to his main blog, created Kinsella archives a blog targeted at Kinsella.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Warren Kinsella is also being sued by Bourrie and has posted negative material on the Mark Bourrie from his Pollara office building headquarters.Arthur Ellis 13:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Conflicts involving Ceraurus[edit]

3) Ceraurus has been involved in conflict regarding Rachel Marsden [3]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arthur Ellis[edit]

4) Ceraurus has previously used at least one sockpuppet, Isotelus (talk · contribs), confirmed by checkuser. Additional Checkuser and circumstantial evidence indicate that it is likely that Ceraurus is now editing as Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Arthur Ellis's first edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This statement is wrong.Arthur Ellis 13:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

prop Thatcher131 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is now redundant with #2 above. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Arthur Ellis[edit]

5) Edits by Arthur Ellis to Warren Kinsella take a critical point of view [4]. His edits to Mark Bourrie, possibly his own article, are supportive, drawing detailed information from his own blog [5].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Mark Bourrie is the only person capable of reading Mark Bourrie's blog? Another stellar leap of logic.Arthur Ellis 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

64.26.147.188 and other socks of Mark Bourrie[edit]

6) 64.26.147.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited as Mark Bourrie [6] [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pete Peters[edit]

7) Pete_Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a participant in the controversy, making his first edit on June 27, 2006 to Mark Bourrie describing him as a "Wikipedia enthusiast and suggesting Ceraurus and Arthur Ellis as user names, reference to Bourrie's account being blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Attacks on Pete Peters[edit]

8) Pete_Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subject to a series of anonymous attacks [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] User contributions 206.191.56.115

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikistalking of Pete Peters[edit]

9) Pete Peters has been subject to wikistalking; having his edits on unrelated articles reverted by the same IP addresses involved in this conflict. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed based on Bucketsofg's evidence. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 207.35.190.72[edit]

10) 207.35.190.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who takes a generally pro-Kinsella point of view [23] [24], edit warring even [25], has made edits which denigrate Mark Bourrie "deranged blogger Mark Bourrie and criticize his alleged editing on Wikipedia [26] [27] [28].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Most of the evidence was presented against the Ceraurus/Ellis/Bourrie side of the conflict, mainly I suppose because most of the debate from the other side comes from IPs. It is good that the decsision focuses on both sides of the problem. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could probably also add 200.123.132.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the pro-Kinsella side. Bucketsofg✐ 18:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Bourque[edit]

11) There has also been tendentious editing regarding Pierre Bourque, another Canadian blogger. IP addresses from Magma (associated with Arthur Ellis) have repeatedly removed what they describe as "vanity" information [29] [30] [31] and inserted negative information [32][33]. Pete Peters and a number of other IP addresses have defended the article by reinserting the positive information and removing negative information [34] [35] [36] [37] . Arthur Ellis has alleged that Pete Peters is Pierre Bourque.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The Bourque entry was inaccurate. My edits are accurate. Please provide evdience that my edits were inaccurate.Arthur Ellis 13:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

prop Thatcher131 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Kinsella[edit]

12) According to Canadian blogers, Warren Kinsella, an attorney licensed in Canada, has responded to negative information regarding him and disclosures of personal information in the Canadian political blogosphere with treats of legal action [38] [39] [40] [41], including at least one action against Mark Bourrie entry for June 23, 2006.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems oppressive to non-lawyers, credible warnings regarding possible legal action are one of the perks lawyers may properly exercise in appropriate circumstances. Fred Bauder 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think Mr. Bauder's assertion is ludicrous.Arthur Ellis 13:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

70.51.52.253[edit]

13) 70.51.52.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Checkuser requests and comments[edit]

14) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Marie Tessier[edit]

15) Marie_Tessier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a suspected sock of has made personal attacks [42].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Attacks by anonymous ips[edit]

16) There have been nasty personal attacks by ips compatible with Arthur Ellis [43].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

"IPs compatible with Arthur Ellis" seem to be all Bell Canada IP addresses in Ottawa, a city of one million people.Arthur Ellis 13:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Ellis is incorrect about the IPs, which are almost all not Bell IPs. Bell's ranges in Ottawa are: 64.230.0.0 - 64.230.127.255 (within which falls no. 44), 70.51.212.0 - 70.51.215.255 (within which falls no. 45), and 70.48.68.0 - 70.48.71.255. This long list of IPs on the evidence page (nos. 1-43) all resolve to Magma Communications, which is owned by Primus, one of Bell's competitors. In relation to Bell, Primus is tiny, controlling (iirc) something like 3% of Canada's telephone market. Bucketsofg✐ 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. My IP turns up among them, and I am a Sympatico subscriber. As well, Magma was a big IP provider in Ottawa.

I am quite prepared to prove I am a Sympatico subscriber. As for proving who owns the other IPs, I suppose you can obsess away, as is your wont in life. Arthur Ellis 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also sometimes use Magma IPs, no? And since you're prepared to prove who your IP is, I take it you would have no objection to Usercheck to release its logs. Bucketsofg✐ 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would much rather discuss the actual edits to the entry, rather than follow you down this blind alley of IP numbers. I take it you concede that you have no case of bias or error in my edits. I also find Crazyrussian and RadioKirk, the two other biased admins, very conspicuous in their absence here and on the evidence page. Seems they have abandoned their case of POV and bias and left this in your hands to drum up some kind of sockpuppetry case. I am willing to disclose all of my personal info if you are. I was rather suprprised, when I did check my IP, that it came up "Magma" when I have a Sympatico account. That is why I believe you are in error again or that you misrepresent the facts.

That said, please tell us how Rachel Marsden, which has been slagged by Jimbo Wales and by the Wiki bio group, should be a template for edits.Arthur Ellis 12:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arthur Ellis[edit]

1) Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other then the talk page of Mark Bourrie.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Should be "other than".

This is based on two unproven and false assumptions: 1. That I am Mark Bourrie; and 2. Mt edits of Warren Kinsella have been inaccurate, an issue which has never been addressed by anyone here, simply because they cannot show the edits were not factual.Arthur Ellis 13:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Ellis to use one account[edit]

2) Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Article probation[edit]

1) Articles which are the locus of dispute (Warren Kinsella, Rachel Marsden, Mark Bourrie, Pierre Bourque, and related articles about the Canadian political blogosphere) are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't want to go this far. Fred Bauder 12:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

First, it's "free rein".

Second, how did the Rachel Marsden article make the list? Third, the remedy in this section exists now. Fourth, some administrators (Bucketsofg, Crazyrussian and RadioKirk have shown very high levels of bias that have been ignored by this process.Arthur Ellis 13:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am concerend that only banning Arthur Ellis will allow the numerous anonymous IPs on both sides free reign. We don't want to have to run a checkuser every time a Magma IP attacks Warren Kinsella, and we have no remedy in case the anti-Ellis IPs continue their disruptive editing. Per "Keep your eye on the ball" the articles may calm down, but we should be prepared in case they do not. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime we came to some sort of consensus in the talk page, the peace would be broken by Magma IP attacks and the article would be semi/fully protected. This remedy would prevent that from happening again, and allow all users --even constructive Magma IPs-- to edit the article. This seems like a happy compromise and better solution than the IP range block that some users requested. Geedubber 11:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

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

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: