Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.


Arthur Ellis (17th request)

[edit]
Ellis and Allison
Code: B, C (see above), E (see below)
Modus Operandi: Keeps reverting and deleting the Julia Allison image with socks.
  • 209. - 3RR 5RR

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Note: Lar did a separate checkuser on Commons and found these results (which were of a different user than AE). Cheers and thanks! miranda 03:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined - given that Ellis is already blocked and Herniaboy (talk) is already blocked as "vandalism-only", there's not much to be gained here, especially to warrant revealing IP information. I will say, though, that Thatsbeautifulforeal (talk) is Red X Unrelated to any of this - Alison ❤ 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur Ellis (16th request)

[edit]


I acknowledge that after a three hour flurry of edits [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. which included the deletion of this and all fifteen previous requests (and findings)[15], Mike Bate has withdrawn his request.[16] However, this does not mean that he has the right to delete the posts of other users. These have been restored. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comment on the arbcom page I think this checkuser is unnecessary at this point and IMHO we can just use the duck test. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added user:Rainmaker2005 as he seemed to be tag-teaming with user:Mike Bate on the article Rachel Marsden prior to it getting fully protected. See the articles history for evidence. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} Can an admin cleanly shut down this so it can all be dealt with at Arbcomm? Mike Bate (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Victoriagirl has tagged some of these as Ellis socks for disrespectful edits to David Suzuki in which these editors insist on posting material about Suzuki's carbon footprint. Ellis has made similar edits. Can we verify these are Ellis socks and add them to the list? Mike Bate (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Code letter: F
Let's be very clear. I did not tag any of the above as Ellis socks, rather I tagged Homeboy99 and Sockpuppet99 as suspected sockpuppets of Overeditor (talk · contribs). The idea that these two are sockpuppets of Ellis was put forward by others. The reason for my having placed the tags, clearly laid out at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Overeditor, bares no relation to that described above.
I recommend that Mike Bate's checkuser request be rejected as it concerns "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet[s]" and "Disruptive "throwaway" account[s]". I add that all of the above are currently blocked. Furthermore, I suggest that Mike Bate (talk · contribs), 64.230.110.91 (talk · contribs) and Victoriagirl1 (talk · contribs) be blocked as "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet[s]" and "Disruptive "throwaway" account[s]". I'm not certain whether this second suggestion can addressed on this page, or needs to be presented elsewhere. Victoriagirl (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added Mike Bate (talk · contribs) per this. Will (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored Will's edit, which was recently deleted by 209.217.123.167 (talk · contribs). There is nothing in the procedure prohibiting the addition of further names. I have written above that I believe this particular request should be thrown out. That said, as it still appears to be under consideration - and recognizing that Mike Bate is now a part of it - I'm adding 64.230.110.91 whose contributions have focused, in the main, on correcting Mike Bate's typos [17], [18], [19] and [20]. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm case note

[edit]

I'm withdrawing this RCU. There is an arcomm case on some of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

Mike Bate (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Likely that Mike Bate= Vividfan=Leon vonTrotsky=Arthur Ellis.
  •  Confirmed that Victoriagirl1 et al =Sunray30 et al = Homeboy99 = Overeditor = Sockpuppet99 = Backtalk = Hotgirl99 = Firebrand99 = Climateguy
  • Rainmaker2005 is Red X Unrelated. No comment on the IP address.
  • No technical connection between the two groups that I can find. Thatcher 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: blocked and tagged all likely and confirmed, mostly by other admins. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying Ellis is not responsibble for the Overeditor-Hotgirl99 socks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.119.155 (talk • contribs)
I'm saying the IPs are not connected. There are a number of ways that a person could arrange to appear on multiple IPs, from proxies to editing while on vacation to having a friend edit for you. This could be a set-up where Ellis arranged some edits that he knew were not from his usual ISP and then reported them himself, or they could really be different people. Checkuser can sometimes give very good results but here you will have to judge based on contributions. Thatcher 12:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis (15th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 08:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Code letter: F

Vividfan's first edits were to Mark Bourrie and the AfD for an article on Bourrie's spouse. Used the abbreviation "afd" in his third edit. Both Vividfan and Chucky, along with an IP from one of Arthur's usual ranges 209.217.79.47 (talk · contribs) have taken a recent interest in making edits critical of David Suzuki. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Buckets, the House of Commons of Canada 192.197.82.153 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is an obvious Ellis sock. It must be blocked. The usual suspects, Buckets and Clayoquot, are after Ellis again. He must really rattle them. As for being critical of Suzuki, all Vividfan does is place a neutrality tag, which Clayoquot removes. Anyone who reads the talk page would see there are serious discussions about the neutrality of the piece. This is a fishing expedition. 209.217.75.171 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note the above post was placed by 209.217.75.171, who identifies him or herself as Chucky the barber (talk · contribs), a blocked user (and one of the suspected sockpuppets listed above).
Contrary to 209.217.75.171’s claim, Vividfan’s participation extends beyond the placement of the neutrality tag on David Suzuki to the talk page; where claims of lack of neutrality are made and direction is given[21][22][23]. To what purpose, one wonders? Vividfan has ignored all who have responded to his concerns. This is all an aside. Before focusing on the Suzuki article, Vividfan’s edits were limited to Mark Bourrie and that of his wife Marion Van de Wetering. Vividfan has returned to the subject today with this edit. Victoriagirl (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My, my. The ever-tedious Victoriagirl, too. Gang's all here! Vividfan (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 IP blocked
 Confirmed - also a number of anon editors including one posting here - Alison ❤ 04:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: blocked and tagged. -- lucasbfr talk 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis (14th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 14 September 2007
  • Code letter: F

Lafarge Dodger is increasingly pursuing the same causes as Arthur Ellis. (I'm new at this; my apologies in advance if I've done this wrong.) AverageGuy 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed. --Deskana (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lafarge Dodger is fixated on deleting references to Mark Bourrie on a previous request for checkuser page. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] This cause was previously pursued by one of Arthur Ellis's sockpuppets. [32] [33]
 Likely --Deskana (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur Ellis (13th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 18 June 2007
  • Code letter: F

As before, we have a new user who has popped up and begun editing the Warren Kinsella article, complaining of autobiographical editing by the subject in question. Nortel Survivor has done a number of edits to the article... making it virtually identical to a version edited and reverted to by previously identified sock Shoppers15 (talk · contribs) - put the current article and that version side by side, and they're nearly exact copies. Could someone please see what other socks are lurking in the drawer? Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk assistance requested: Mark this as completed please. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Nortel Survivor has also taken it upon him/herself to illegally block my user page [34] and make unfounded allegations of sock puppetry again. I have advised the Wiki admins[35]

Sorry fellas, I am sure you have better things to do.

TropicNord


Arthur Ellis (12th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 13 April 2007
  • Code letter: F

More blanking and reversion of a fully sourced entry by very recent user with the sole purpose of vandalising Warren Kinsella. Recently added material by TropicNord presented a balanced NPOV and not the one sided view prefered by Arthur Ellis socks.

It would seem that someone has created an almost endless group of user ID's in order to prevent any updating or addition to the Warren Kinsella page for some negative purpose. I doubt mediation would have any effect on this user.

Should I be proven correct, may I suggest the admins page revert back to my last entry and page protect Warren Kinsella for a short time in order for the other user to regain his/her composure, collect his/her thoughts and reconsider this current approach.

Thanks, sorry for the inconvenience.

TropicNord April 14,2007

 Confirmed. Here's the rest:

  1. Buttonforanose (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Happysmilingfun (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Catworthy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Buttonsforeyes (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur Ellis (11th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 13 April 2007
  • Code letter: F

Blanking and reversion of fully sourced entry by recently joined user with the sole purpose of vandalising Warren Kinsella. Recently added material by TropicNord presented a balanced NPOV and not the one sided view prefered by Arthur Ellis socks.

Moreover, Catworthy would have prefered and requested that I add material on the Ontario Lottery matter in regards to Kinsella, subject which is taken up with much vigor by Mark Bourrie on his blog [36].

Catworthy added an [37]unsourced entry about Mr. Kinsella was added with the objective to provide more negative comment.

I apologize for the continued disruption, I am certain you have better things to do.

I await your decision before engaging in more edits, I consider that it is unproductive to add material which will only be reverted again and again (an Arthur Ellis trademark).

TropicNord13 April 2007

 Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block confirmed banned Arthur Ellis sock Catworthy who has blanked and reverted page Warren Kinsellaafter confirmation by wiki admin Dmcdevit·t declared Catworthy an Arthur Ellis sock.

Thank you, TropicNord14 April 2007


Arthur Ellis (10th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 03:34, 3 April 2007
  • Code letter: F

Obvious sock recently joined, only edited Warren Kinsella, probably with intend to re-start edit war. Telephon 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite the allegation coming from someone using a Magma IP: Special:Contributions/209.217.75.222 many of which have been banned as being socks for Arthur Ellis. The admins have my IP, and it isn't a Magma IP. I see no issue preventing me in editing this page, as matter of fact, permit me to draw your attention to the entry which appears on the discussion page:
Can an admin revert the considerable amount of unsourced material recently added to this page? Telephon 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't need an admin for this. Also, it would be better if someone familiar with the subject remove unreferenced material as needed :) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Admins: Please remove the sock allegation on my talk page once your investigation is complete.
BTW: Isn't it time that these Magma IP's be banned permanently ? --TropicNord

Perhaps TropicNord would explain why he has taken out considerable sourced material from the Warren Kinsella article and added unsourced material? Certainly, he's someone's dog in this fight. I suspect some kind of sleepr account. --Telephon 00:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than mere speculation what evidence do you have to back that "dog" allegation up, since you wanted to edit the page yourself. Provide concrete evidence, or back off.--TropicNord
If this is not acase of sock puppetry, it's likely a case of autobiography. Telephon 13:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are now admitting that you really can't prove your original allegations that I am an Arthur Ellis sock,the wiki admins have even told you as much:

I haven't been around Wikipedia that much lately but I do have an eye on the Kinsella article. I honestly don't know enough about Kinsella to say if that "war room" claim is true or not. If it bothers you, I'd suggest that you add a fact tag or simply remove it and request a source for it on the talk page. Even if it is true, it should be sourced. The same goes for the whole article.

As for TropicNord, I see that you've put in a checkuser request for him/her. Although I don't quite understand your request. Nobody ever accused Arthur Ellis of being overly sympathetic towards Kinsella. In any event, I hope that resolves your problems to your satisfaction. If you need any other help, let me know. --JGGardiner 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you have retreated behind this latest allegation. Another allegation which you provide no support.

If you would have bothered to notice, I have not engaged on an edit war by editing other contentious pages, and I won't be. I am solely interested in applying the same standard to this page as is applied to other similar pages.

I am awaiting the outcome of this decision before going any further and I expect you or the admins to remove the allegation of sockpuppetry that you have placed on my talk page since you have admitted that I am not what you have alledged that I am (an Arthur Ellis sock).

Moreover, I think it would be wise for the wiki admins to place a controvertial header on this page.

If the admins think this page can no longer be edited then they have three options:

a) Delete the entry and ban anyone from posting another. b) Ban all editing and admit defeat. c) Status quo --TropicNord


Sigh I suspect that TropicNord (talk · contribs) is Warren Kinsella himself. He is not a banned user, but it is considered gauche to edit one's own article. It would be best to confine his edits to the talk page. I further suspect that Telephon (talk · contribs) is either Arthur Ellis, or another Canadian editor with an interest in the Kinsella-Bourrie dispute. Thatcher131 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: This case was improperly formatted and not listed on the /Pending page. I have corrected this. Thatcher131 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, allegations are made without any support, you are just guessing that I am Kinsella, and I am not. Please provide your evidence Thatcher131 that I and Telephon are what you say we are.

I am very aware of the edit war that went on last year and Telephon is not an Arthur Ellis sockpuppet and I am not what you claim I am either.

Moreover, permit me to draw to your attention to who in fact began these allegations of sockpuppetry:Special:Contributions/209.217.75.222 a Magma IP, sound familiar ?

Telephon just jumped on the bandwagon, he/she's not a Arthur Ellis/Kinsella supporter.

If I am not determined to be a banned user, then please remove the allegation from my talk page.

After seeing what happened to Franks2000, time has come for wikipedia to grow and intelligently tackle these controversial pages in a step by step manner and not let the trolls take control.

Once again, I await the outcome of this determination before editing any further, I will not engage in the useless and pointless exchange which I saw last year on this page.


--TropicNord

Sad to say that Telephon saw fit to blindly revert the entire entry, including the more recent and referenced items [38]

I would appreciate a determination as to the allegation of sockpuppetry before I return to the Kinsella page to add the substiatiated additions which were removed in such a cavalier fashion.

--TropicNord

 Confirmed Telephon is Arthur Ellis. Dmcdevit·t 09:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur Ellis (9th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 03:34, 3 April 2007
  • Code letter: F

Evidence: Winnebago Warrior's two edits so far are to Mark Bourrie and reverting my removal of edits byuser:Warfarin eater, the most recent known Ellis sock. If additional evidence is needed, I can provide it by email. Kla'quot 04:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: AN/I ban thread. -- lucasbfr talk 06:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 08:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur Ellis (8th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: Warfarin eater vandalizes both Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden. First edit ever was to suggest that an administrator remove information on Mark Bourrie. Retillian Kitten Eater's first edits are to harass user:Bucketsofg, subsequently removes information on Bourrie, writing style is Ellis-like. The IPs were used in and around Ellis's appeal to ArbCom to have his community ban overturned. Kla'quot 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I have removed the IP addresses, as the privacy policy prohibits checkusers from disclosing them. PTO 21:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Why is this still in the Non-Compliant section of the RFCU page? I can't figure out how to move it to the normal requests section. Kla'quot 09:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've figured it out and moved it to the correct section. It looks as if PTO made it compliant and then moved it to the Non-Compliant section at the same time (?!). Kla'quot 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, UninvitedCompany did that. [39] PTO 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. My apologies, PTO! These subpages confused me. I had this page watchlisted but not the pages where it's transcluded. Several of the previous checkuser requests include IP addresses and I don't know why it's suddenly such a big problem. Dismissing an RFCU instead of removing the IP addresses or refusing comment on them seems severe. Kla'quot 00:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed Please pick exactly one code letter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code F, this user is community-banned. Kla'quot 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis (7th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: Alaric the Goth edits Rachel Marsden (from which he is specifically banned) with an interest in including her new show on Fox[40]; as have has recent socks[41]; he also seems to be trying to pick a fight User:Bearcat (one of his "enemies" from the Marsden Arbcomm), after using another sock to get him editing Gerald Hannon and soon filing Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Gerald_Hannon. He removed his own real-life name from Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ceraurus here and here. IP xxx.239 vandalized User:Bucketsofg's page in an Ellis-like fashion (another "enemy"); IP xxx.33 edited Mark Bourrie; IP xxx.239 edits Talk:Nardwuar the Human Serviette and Party Favours, both pages that he has edited before. Presumably checkuser will reveal other socks, too. Bucketsofg 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Alaric the Goth. Mackensen (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur Ellis (6th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: Creates and edits articles on trilobites, including Ceraurus. His Talk page includes the name "Mark Bourrie" thanks to another user's comment (KLH had edited Fulgence Charpentier previously edited by Ceraurus, and added a ref whose author is Mark Bourrie). Exactly four days after his first edit, edits the semi-protected Rachel Marsden to dilute well-sourced factual information and then votes in Deletion Review. Kla'quot 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. No useful underlying information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis' block is over, and since he's deregistered, the person who posted as Ellis has the right to start a new, single account and edit with it without being hunted on Wikipedia. Kitty's little helper 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately see [[42]]. Every time Ellis breaks the one month ban originally imposed here on 28 November, the one month clock resets. The clock resets again now, the ban will expire on 2 March. Thatcher131 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also discussion about a possible community ban here. Newyorkbrad 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur Ellis (5th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis was banned for one month at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Arthur_Ellis_banned_for_one_month and is banned from editing articles on Canadian politics at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis.

User:Buffalo Bob Rae continues the insertion of anti-Kinsella material into Warren Kinsella. We probably need another check of the sock drawer for accounts editing from the IPs listed above. User:LotusLander2006 was mentioned by someone else's sock at WP:AE and has so-far caused no serious disruption. Bucketsofg 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, while the original Lotuslander made a number of anti-Marsden edits, Lotuslander2006 seems to be pro-Marden/pro Arthur Ellis, and, while not particularly disruptive, is a problem if it is Arthur Ellis evading his topic and site bans. Thatcher131 20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's a tricky one. This diff, however, shows that Buffalo is identical to 209.217.96.177, who just now indulged in his old warcry "Warren Kinsella is a psychopath". Bucketsofg 02:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Deferred to Mackensen. Clerks, please let him know. Essjay (Talk) 06:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Notified by Daniel Bryant Geo. 17:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely that Bob is Arthur Ellis. Everything else is inconclusive. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis (4th request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 05:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis was banned for one month at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Arthur_Ellis_banned_for_one_month and is banned from editing articles on Canadian politics at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis.

After 209.217.79.235 and 209.217.79.212 were blocked as an Ellis IPs, 209.217.124.237 has continued editing to promote an anti-Kinsella agenda.

Now several other new accounts are operating suspiciously. User:Deiphon is a single issue account advocating the deletion of the record of some of Bourrie's earlier misdeeds, and User:Fred Bauder's law license was registered as an attack account. New account User:Victor Victorian reverts to a more flattering version of Mark Bourrie, and User:Happy Fun Toy seemed only interested in Bourrie and Kinsella for its first week.

A checkuser is needed to confirm whether or not these are socks, and perhaps can identify other "sleeper" socks. Bucketsofg 05:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I am not related to the other Ellis suspects. Just wanted to make a helpful comment with some anonymity. Cause of all the problems this issue has caused people. I am very sorry for that. --Deiphon 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed all save Deiphon. There were numerous sleeper socks as well; all have been blocked. Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis (3rd request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch

Suspicion that these are Arthur Ellis socks expressed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#More Arthur Ellis socks and WP:ANI#Ceraurus.2FArthur Ellis evading ban. Shows same fixation on Rachel Marsden, Mark Bourrie and Warren Kinsella. --Real Times 08:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address is in the same range as several IPs listed in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ceraurus (User:Ceraurus being an earlier identity of Arthur Ellis). See in particular User:209.217.123.151, an IP which admitted being Ceraurus. Real Times 08:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. User:Stompin' Tom was created 14:15, 23 October 2006, the same day that Arthur Ellis abandoned his last account (here). Also, ST has just filed an AFD for Marsden here. This is the third AFD for this article: the first and second were both filed by checkuser confirmed socks of Arthur Ellis: User:Ceraurus and User:Isotelus. Bucketsofg 21:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anyone's sock, and I wonder if you might like to check Real Times, whose sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to accuse me. I have made several hundred edits. No one objected to my edits of Bourie a nd Kinsella, none of which changed the tone or major substance of the articles. I seemed to have stepped on someone's toes by putting Marsden up for RFD, and, ironcally, have been put up for a checkuser by a "new" editor who has a remarkable knowledge of Arthur Ellis socks (though many of the Ellis "socks" seem like an attempt to change his name and edit anonymously. He went from Isotelus to Ceraurus to Ellis without overlap).Stompin' Tom 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 01:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur Ellis (2nd request)

[edit]

Craigleithian first edits were to join Arthur Ellis in a reversion war on the Rachel Marsden page: 1RR by Arthur Ellis 2RR by Craigleithian 3RR by Craigleithian 4RR by Arthur Ellis 5RR by Arthur Ellis 6RR by Craigleithian 7RR by Craigleithian

Craigleithian's agenda is identical to Ellis'. Craig holds that the WP:BLP policy requires the removal of all negative material from an article regardless of its source (see here), an idiosyncratic interpretation that only Arthur Ellis shares (see here). Ellis has been trying to goad several user into a pointless mediation on this point (here); he is joined by Leithian in almost identical terms here.

This is all related to a case is currently nearing completion before ArbComm involving Arthur Ellis (aka User:Ceraurus, aka User:Mark Bourrie, aka User:Marie Tessier, aka IPs resolving to Magma Communications in Ottawa too numerous to mention), who has often used socks to get around 3RR Bucketsofg✐ 01:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). Mackensen (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur Ellis

[edit]

At Warren Kinsella, Tessier username appeared moments after a 3RR block for Ellis and continued the edit war where Ellis left off, pressing the same position. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, Kind of like the tag-team you have going will Ellis' detractors, right asshole? You are far too fucking dumb to ever practice law. Looks like you do Wiki full-time anywayMarie Tessier 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: This request is related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus. Thatcher131 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Ceraurus did make an edit to his user talk page yesterday. Ianking 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that edit,  Likely that they're the same (similar grounds). Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this finding, the following additional check may be appropriate.

On July 5, Warren Kinsella posted links on his blogs to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus and User:70.51.52.253, which described allegations that Arthur Ellis, who negatively edits Warren Kinsella, is really Ceraurus, formerly Mark Bourrie, who has a long-standing dispute in real life with Kinsella. Immediately, a series of Canadian IP addresses began blanking the pages and posting slurs against Kinsella, so that readers of Kinsella's blog would see the slurs and not the sockpuppet allegations. (The User:70.51.52.253 user page was deleted and protected by King of Hearts, but the edits are still there in the deleted page history.)

Some of these IPs have also edited Mark Bourrie, Warren Kinsella, and other articles in this particular sphere of Canadian blogs/politics. Additional similar Canadian IPs that have edited these articles include:

Before Mark Bourrie was semi-protected, Arthur Ellis and these IPs basically owned the article and probably engaged in multiple 3RR evasions (in addition to the ones he was caught at). Plus, if Ellis is Ceraurus/Bourrie, there is a huge WP:AUTO problem here.

It should be pointed out that some of the IPs editing the Bourrie article are highly negative and are probably tied to Kinsella.

The purpose of this request is to demonstrate to Arthur Ellis that we are not fools, that we understand his game, and that we will not tolerate it any longer. This evidence could be useful if it ever goes to arbitration, which is one reason I am asking now, before the logs grow stale. However, it would be nice if Ellis realized that he needs to work within the system and can't game us any more. Thatcher131 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the IPs supplied by Thatcher131, I would also suggest cross checking the ones below, all which vandalized the Warren Kinsella and/or Pierre Bourque. They are Magma Communications accounts (31 Auriga Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2E-1C4, Tel: +1-613-228-3565), so perhaps a range block is possible. There are probably a dozen others, but I can't keep up. You'll see that Arthur Ellis / Mark Bourrie / Ceraurus has played similar games over at Rachel Marsden. It's like whack-a-mole. Wiederaufbau 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: I gather there's an arbcom case now. I'm tabling this request pending any injunctions that might be issued. This is moving beyond our purview, I think. Mackensen (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis&oldid=1147984687"