Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Arthur Ellis

Please stop marking up my evidence section

Follow the rules outlined above. This evidence/workshop/proposed decision system is confusing enough without people breaking up sections by trying to engage in debate. Admins should know better.Arthur Ellis 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bio of a living person becomes vehicle of smear

To me, this is not a dispute over Rachel Marsden. I don't know whether Marsden is guilty or innocent of all, or any, of the allegations made against her. I don't think anyone can ever know, as most of the allegations and "evidence" has never been tested. This appears to me to be a he/said - she/said dispute, with a few others piled on to buttress the first one. I do not believe anyone would care about these allegations if Marsden was not an attractive young woman. It is an issue of the quality of scholarship on Wikipedia and the future of the encyclopedia: whether it will be the vehicle of every ax-grinder in the world to shape the public persona of others, or a useful and high-quality reference tool. Removing biased and salacious material is not "blanking". A few observations:

• Allegations are simply that: allegations. If they are not tested in a court or a proper tribunal, they are simply claims that have been made. If they are so old that it it is obvious they will not be empirically tested -- as these are -- they should not be used to prove "notoriety".
• Stringing a series of allegations together should not be used to attempt to define a person in an encyclopedia.

The article was originally drafted in July, 2005 and "owned" by user:Homeontherange, who left Wikipedia in August in the face of an arbitration case that was going badly for him. user: Ceraurus made his first edits at 12:57 Jan. 30, 2006. At that time, the article talked about Marsden's father'suspension by the Vancouver school board. It brought in immaterial facts like the Moonie ownership of the Washington Times, which printed Marsden's work. Throughout, it suggested she was a liar. Over-all, the piece could be characterised as a hatchet job. To make a very long story short, by the spring, Ceraurus was banned for "edit warring". I have tried to soften the article as much as possible, beginning a few weeks after Ceraurus' ban. I have been attacked on Wikipedia since undertaking this work.

Jimbo Wales weighs in

Jimbo criticized the over-all tone of this and related articles. As usual, criticism of the article's tone was ignored, and the cabal involved in this mess did their typical stunt (repeated by Bucketsofg in recent arbitrations) of concentrating their energy on one small point (French fluency) and ignoring the big picture [2]. Here's how the article looked then: [3] Here's how it looks now:[4]. If anything, it's just as bad, but written in a more faux scholarly fashion.

Admins hide behind process, lose sight of the ball

In their zeal to enforce the 3RR rule, admins have allowed this article to be dominated by anti-Marsden Canadian editors who are protected by their anonymity, and who have been able to tag-team to keep this article negative.

"Be Kind to Newbies" Forgotten

In their zeal to protect the salacious Marsden article, the handful of Canadian editors and admins who have nurtured the entry immediately attacked Mark Bourrie/Ceraurus when he criticised the article, blocked him, and within a few weeks of his arrival on Wikipedia, banned him. If arbitrators believe the article is biased and admins and editors have acted in bad faith, Ceraurus' ban should be lifted and his pages cleared of the negative material placed on them. In return, Ceraurus should be placed on probation and/or should work with a mentor until he learns the ropes of Wikipedia (and to control his edit-warring) -- if he wants to return.

Admins aren't with the program re bios of living people

See Konstable's entry on the Request for Arbitration entry, where he dismisses my argument re: bios of living people, says he did not read the entry, and issued the block because of 3RR, which, he believed, took precedence. Note, too, the fact he said he was too busy to give the issue a complete examination because of personal problems. When Wikipedia admins cannot do their work properly, they should take a break, rather than do a poor job.

Talk page

Isolating all the vicious material posted about Marsden would make this much too long. Please glance over the talk pages, including those that were archived. They make very distressing reading.

Bucketsofg bias

Not all of Bucketsofg's edits are bad, and he is certainly not the worst offender in the Marsden entry. That pride of place would go to departed Wikipedia admin Homeontherange [5]. Bucketsofg is notable because has an ongoing campaign to discredit former Canadian MP Germant Grewal and anyone associated with him. Grewal may well be a great target for investigative journalists, but that is not Wikipedia is supposed to be about. The Bucketsofgrewal (Bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com) blog is written anonymously. He also owns and uses bucketsofdata.wordpress.com as a data repository to link to. I believe it's rather unethical, cowardly and more than a bit creepy that someone spends so much time and energy researching Grewal and writing about him anonymously. Bucketsofg's first edit, in June, 2005, was to the Germant Grewal entry [6], and, in fact, he did little else until early this year, when he moved on to Marsden and other projects. His first edit to Marsden is to change her description from "blunt conservative" to "controversial conservative" [7]. Here, he removes the fact she was a catwalk model, which may or may not be notable, but is certainly as notable as many other parts of the entry [8]. He gets back to the Grewal stuff here, suggesting the fact Marsden worked in Grewal's office while facing very minor charges (re-routing e-mails and sending too much candy) is "controversial" [9]. Here, [10], he uses a blog entry to back up a claim that Marsden has falsified her resume. Most of his edits will be done in a similar, incremental but determined way. Here, he agrees to use original research from his blog on the Germant Grewal entry [11]. He uses this material, among other places, here: [12]. Here, he coaches Ian King on the same practice: [13] By February he was busy on Marsden and the entry for Ezra Levant, editor of the Western Standard, a magazine he has mocked on his own blog, www.bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com but that suffices as his source for Marsden. In the title [14], the Western Standard calls Marsden a "fraud artist", an allegation that certainly does not come from any criminal charges and is not even made in the Western Standard article. Surely that should have raised a red flag. Here [15] he discounts IMDB as a source for Marsden's work on the TV show 20/20, preferring instead to have the entry read as though she is a liar in that regard. But here he uses IMDB as a source on how often Marsden has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and changes "frequent" guest to "occassional" guest [16].While IMDB is not a good enough source for Bucketsofg on something that helps Marsden's image, a blog is fine for making her look like a liar re: 20/20 [17]. Here, [18], Bucketsofg uses an anonymous source in a blog to make it appear Marsden falsified her resume. Here, Bucketsofg changes "sexual harrassment" to "date rape" based on a story he clipped from a newspaper in Kitchener, Ontario (some 2,000 miles from Vancouver) and stored in his own web site[19]. Here, [20] Bucketsofg places lurid e-mail entries in the Marsden article, along with considerable sourcing for Donnelly's defence but none for Marsden. Here, he sexes it up a bit: now naughty pictures are slipped under Donnelly's door: [21]. Marsden has a reason for sending Donnelly a Playboy magazine subscription, but Bucketsofg adds another quote out of context: [22]. When Ceraurus trimmed back the harassment material, Bucketsofg added more: [23]. Marsden refused to go into an arbitration, a decision that Bucketsofg starts using against her here: [24], and Bucketsofg doesn't bother to give the explanation Marsden made in that article. In this edit [25], he removes the fact that the case was never adjudicated and, from at least a legal standpoint, is still undecided. Many months after beginning work on the article, Bucketsofg finally includes the fact Donnelly admitted having Marsden in his apartment [26] but that fact doesn't last long in the body of the text. In fact, almost all of Marsden's reported defences and explanations -- at least the ones chosen by this cabal -- are found in the footnotes. Here [27], he adds Donnelly's claim that he boycotted the SFU sexual harrassment process on the advice of his lawyer. He does that again here: [28]. Bucketsofg seems prepared to accept all of Donnelly's claims at face value [29], but none of Marsden's. For instance, a claim by Marsden that Donnelly had chosen pictures of her from her modelling portfolio is moved from the body text to a reference: [30]. Here, he adds a "warning" to Marsden from the university, sourced by a Toronto Star story selected by Bucketsofg and stored in his blog. [31]. Here [32], Bucketsofg refers to Marsden as "stridently conservative" (as opposed to the original "blunt". Note the incrementalism. It's similar to this edit [33], where he torques up the SFU decision from a virtual tie between Donnelly and Marsden to something negative about Marsden) and here, where a signing someone up for a subscription to Playboy is made, by the adding of the word "even", to look a little worse: [34]. Here, he removes a humanizing factor: Marsden uses humour in her columns [35]; Not content with these fixes to the Marsden page, Bucketsofg begins, on Feb. 28, a page on the Marsden-Donnelly case [36] and within a few days has written a long article [37], and, in fact, been the only one working on it [38].

As Bucketsofg works anonymously, it is impossible to know his relationship to Grewal or any other actor in Canadian politics, but there is speculation in the Canadian media that Bucketsofg is a federal Liberal operative. Bucketsofg also may be connected with Warren Kinsella. Bucketsofg was an active participant in the very recent Warren Kinsella arbitration. Bucketsofg was a very active editor on Rachel Marsden last winter. During that edit war over the Marsden article, Ceraurus was permantly banned for edit warring. Bucketsofg has a pattern of provoking edit wars, documenting the misbehavior that results, then using them, via administrator notice boards, to affect bans.

Selected newspaper clippings are not always good sources

Because of the nature of the original Marsden-Donnelly dispute, allegations that normally would not be newsworthy -- Boyd, O'Hagan, Morgan -- found their way into newspapers and into Wikipedia.

Beware of Hidden Agendas

The article relies on two main sources: a report to the Fraser Institute by a Simon Fraser University professor writing about a controversy at his own university (which would hardly pass a journalistic test for objectivity and would never survive peer review) and an article written by one of Marsden's competitors. Other sources are selected newspaper clippings. After initially using the Fraser Institute study, Bucketsofg simply broke down the sources cited in that article and used them as sources to make it appear as though he had re-researched the entry.

Bearcat bias

Bearcat began his edits of the article at 06:12, 16 August 2005 and immediately showed bias, writing this as his edit description: "(as tempting as :Category:Canadian bullshit artists would be, I suppose that would constitute POV. damnit.)" His first actual edit of text was to revert two days of re-writes of mine, saying there had been a problem with references: [39]; here, Bearcat ignores my assertion the page violates policies regarding bios of living persons and my attempts to bring the article up to standards: [40] and threatens to edit block me if I push the issue: [41]. He is also a frequent contributor of nasty anti-Marsden material on the talk pages.

Ian King

King's first edit, Aug. 6, 2006, was to re-insert Marsden's birthday: [42], which, a few days later, Bucketsofg, who, as an admin, had edited Marsden so many times before, finally removed: [43]. Most of his "work" on the article has been to keep up anti-Marsden rhetoric on the talk pages, most of which have been archived. All of King's newspaper "evidence", his claim that hundreds of articles were negative to Marsden, can only be accepted if one believes that not a single newspaper reporter ever bothered to ask for, or to print, Marsden's side of the story.Arthur Ellis

Sockpuppetry

user: Mackensen is wrong when he says I am User: Ceraurus. I do not know how I can go about proving this negative. However, I hope this time arbitrators stick to the issue of the article. I believe they lost sight of the ball on Warren Kinsella, lost themselves in rules and process, and did not consider the edits to the article itself. This time, the article is so obviously agregious that arbitrators cannot miss the implications regarding the Canadian cadre of editors and admins. The Craigleithian identity was an attempt to dump the oft-attacked user: Arthur Ellis and try to begin anew on Wikipedia, without harassment and attempted outings on Wikipedia. Bucketsofg attempts to lay every bit of trolling re: Rachel Marsden on my door. He seems to accuse me of faking Ceraurus' death. It doesn't matter that the IPs are not mine. Just add more lies to the stack, and, in his mind, it begins to look like truth. You are asked to believe that all IPs in Ottawa, whether from the 40,000-student University of Ottawa, the huge National Library, large commercial Internet providers, etc. posting material that Bucketsofg does not like, belong to me. As well, other participants in the Marsden dispute appear to me to be sockpuppets, including user:wiederaufbau, who arrives in the midst of the arguments, makes very few edits other than those connected with Marsden and Warren Kinsella and disappears from Wikipedia six weeks ago, his last post being to the Kinsella arbitration [44]. He may be the same person as unpunished wikistalker user: Pete Peters. So, can people bring their campaign against some no-name MP and his associates to Wikipedia and do what they like as long as folks are baffled with ludicrous accusations, with lots of meaningless IPs and links? I've looked at some of the edits of my so-called sock puppets, Isotelus, Ceraurus and Marie Tessier, and none of them seemed trollish, evil or untrue. The rest, a bunch of IP numbers of many IP companies, insitutions, etc., are called suspected sockpuppets. I suspect Mackensen's reach has exceeded his grasp (just as the reach of FM Mackensen exceeded his grasp). As well, even if you think I am guilty of all of the allegations of sockpuppetry, remember Bucketsofbias, Bearcat and Thatcher131 are administrators, as was Homeontherange.Arthur Ellis 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Mark Bourrie's name

Mark Bourrie's name is flung around this section with reckless abandon. If I were Mark Bourrie (which I am not), I'd expect those who use my name to have the courage and courtesy to remove their masks. I take it Wiki has no policy regarding outing editors, or so it seems re:Bucketsofg. Arthur Ellis 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious edits

Bucketsofg's accusations of so-called "tendentious editing" involved putting recent allegations against the SFU swim team into the article. It was the Globe and Mail, however, and not me, that made the connection between Donnelly, the swim team, and the swim team. If it had nothing to do with Donnelly, why would it matter that he was not available for comment, as mentioned in the article cited below by Bucketsofgrewal? But this editing "sin" pales in comparison with posts by regular editors (I'm not going to be bothered with the trolling, which, if it had been pro-Marsden, would certainly have been blamed on me.) Here, Samaritan implies, because Marsden writes for the Washington Times, she's connected to the Moonies: [45]; Here, Pasboudin suggests she's a liar about working at 20/20 because of a quote from an unnamed source in a Toronto newspaper and changes "was" a catwalk model to "claims to have been training" as a catwalk model: [46]; Here Pasboudin lays the War in Iraq at Marsden's feet: [47]; here, Samaritan's request to assume good faith is reverted to a version where it's implied she's a liar when she says she has training as a photographer and catwalk model: [48]; here, it's implied she somehow recieved undeserved college credits: [49]; here, in spite of Wiki policy, her birthday is added: [50]; here, an allegation against her father is added to the entry: [51]; here's a version of the entry where, in the first paragraph, authors consider attacks on Marsden in the Canadian gossip magazine Frank to be quite important: [52]; Here, admin Cantsleepclownwilleatme considers it important to restore the claims about her unearned university credits and the implication that Marsden lied about working for 20/20:[53]; Here, Fred Bauder's attempts to soften the article and explain the real meaning of a conditional discharge (after a brief reversion war with Homeontherange) are undone: [54]; soon afterwards, Homeontherange is back to distort the meaning of a conditional discharge: [55]; Here, Ceraurus makes his first edit, removing a paragraph alleging Marsden's photo on her web page was Marsden's face photoshopped on a picture of Julia Roberts and adding Marsden is a frequent guest on Dennis Miller and Bill O'Reilly's show [56] and is immediately set upon. Homeontherange quickly restores the Julia Roberts line [57]. Ceraurus removed the line about Marsden's supposedly unearned credits [58] but this was quickly reverted [59]]. Here, Pasboudin ensures the unearned credits, Frank Magazine line and other negative, unsourced and unimportant material stays in: [60]. Here, she's accused of being a polarizing agent in Canadian politics: [61]; Here, Pasboudin says, without proof, that Marsden was fired from the National Post: [62]; here [63], Cyberboomer removes an IMDB reference because there was "no proof IMDB not wrong or material uploaded there in bad faith."; here, he changes "she was a production assistant at ABC" to "she claims to have been..." [64]; here [65], Homeontherange claims Marsden was fired from her job as an assistant to MP Germant Grewal, despite Grewal's insistence her contract had expired. Here, Cyberboomer puts in a quote from an anonymous Conservative organizer slagging Marsden after Marsden turned down a request from a Conservative to run for that party: [66]. Here, Ceraurus complains about the use of a copyright picture [67]. Geedubber makes his first edit to Marsden, ignoring the complaint [68]. The complaint is ignored until Sept. 25, 2006, when the picture is finally removed by Wiki copyright police. Here [69], while the page is semi-protected, admin Homeontherange adds into the introduction "She was most recently known for dating Toronto political icon, Andre Lehrer." Here [70], DRCarroll adds Marsden to "Category: Convicts". Here, after two days of my work, my edits are reverted by Wiederaufbau with no explanation except an accusation [71]:

Arthur Ellis edits

My first edit was an attempt to soften the article and to add a very small bit of description of her column style: [72]. Since then, that has been the focus of my work on Marsden.

Now you can do what you want

Thank you for allowing me to present my case. You can see why I got a little cheesed as what I thought was pseudo-scholarship and dishonesty on Wikipedia. Now Bucketsofg can rattle on about sock puppetry and, with his friends, do what he can to muddy the waters. You will never hear from me again.

Evidence presented by Konstable

"Admins aren't with the program"

Arthur's statement regarding my comment on the RfAr page is a mis-interpretation. Firstly, I never said I haven't read the page, I have not read the page in full (but please, if you can, point me towards at least one administrator that reads a full wikipedia article before blocking for 3RR). I have read the parts Arthur was deleting - and they were indeed sourced statements, and to add to this there had been opposition from several well-established Wikipedia editors. Whether the sources are reliable is obviously a debatable issue (hence the Arbitration). Secondly, Arthur had also violated WP:SOCK using Craigleithian (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) to avoid 3RR - which seems to me like it's saying that he knew that he would get blocked for reverting the page more than 3 times. Instead of emailing and asking for an unblock, or putting an unblock template on his page, Arthur had used more sockpuppets to evade his block and post the mentioned RfAr's which were reverted by other users - whether this was the best action or not, I believe it is justified per WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks.

Evidence presented by Mark Bourrie/Ceraurus

This is the fifth month of my "temporary block". I continue to see allegations that I am Arthur Ellis. It appears to me that Ellis posts day and night, and that a reasonable person would see that he/she likely posts from home most of the time. Therefore, if an arbitrator would send me a fax number (mbourrie@yahoo.com), I will be happy to fax my IP bills showing that, in the early part of 2006 I was a customer of Rogers High Speed (a Canadian cable company with static IPs) and since July have been a customer of Bell/Sympatico. I have not had a Magma account since the 1990s and I will sign an authorisation to allow an arbitrator to check with Magma in that regard. I wish I had been able to offer that in the Warren Kinsella arbitration, but, at the time, that was evidence I was hanging onto in case Kinsella followed through with his libel suit threat of June 27. Since the 90 day time limit has expired, I can make that offer now. I want to apologize to Ellis for not being able to help sooner.

Evidence presented by Geedubber

First Assertion: Persistent Blanking

Arthur Ellis and his confirmed sockpuppets have repeatedly vandalized the Rachel Marsden entry by blanking large portions of sourced text.

• Arthur Ellis

[73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

• Craigleithian

[82] [83] [84]

• Cerarus

[85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

• Isotelus

[104] [105] [106] [107] [108]

Second Assertion: My first edit was legitimite

In the evidence, Arthur Ellis states "Here, Ceraurus complains about the use of a copyright picture. Geedubber makes his first edit to Marsden, ignoring the complaint". What actually happened was Ceraurus blanked the majority of the page and claimed a copyright violation as his excuse. The image in question was a publicity photo and was eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use, so I reverted the page back to its original condition. If there was indeed a copyright violation that should have been addressed on the image's page - not by blanking the entire Marsden entry.

Evidence presented by Bucketsofg

First Assertion: Arthur Ellis & ArbComm rulings

On Sept. 18, the Arbitration Committee ruled that Arthur Ellis (aka Ceraurus, Mark Bourrie, etc., etc.)† had engaged in abuse, disruption, and tendentious editing in articles about himself, Warren Kinsella (his bête noire), Pierre Bourque (a friend of Kinsella's), and Rachel Marsden (a friend of Bourrie/Ellis). The remedies limited Ellis to one account and banned him from entries on Canadian politics and its blogosphere (here), including any pages mentioning Warren Kinsella.

† In the Kinsella ArbComm case, the final decision identifies Ellis, Bourrie, and Ceraurus. The rest of my evidence treats this as established.

This ruling was not a day old before Ellis, through socks, began to break it. Anon-IPs consistent with his demonstrated usage vandalized the talk page of an ArbComm member and blanked an ArbComm page with assertions that "Kinsella and Pierre Bourque are psychopaths". Similar phrases ([109][110] [111], and worse) were inserted in a number of articles. Another IP, 64.230.108.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), again consistent with Ellis' usage, went through Canadian articles removing Kinsella's name [112], adding speedy-delete templates [113][114][115] (etc.), or making tendentious edits [116].

On 27th September, while editing his case above, Ellis breached the ArbComm remedies again. These required Ellis to limit himself to one account and not edit the Mark Bourrie entry. Arthur Ellis used 209.217.84.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to edit the Bourrie entry here, removing reference to the Kinsella lawsuit. (Proof that it is Ellis is here, where Ellis signs the IP's edits as his own.) The fact that AE was using an IP to delete material that he had agreed to on the talk page two days earlier suggests duplicity.

Second Assertion: Sockpuppets used to revert and disrupt at RM

On Sept. 16, as the ArbComm case was coming to a close, AE violated 3RR by using another puppet, Craigleithian. This account had been created last summer, on 04:14, 20 July 2006, an hour after Ellis had been blocked for 3RR. Later that same day, when Marie Tessier, another Arthur Ellis sock, was blocked 15:36, 20 July 2006, another sock of Ellis (209.217.96.46) boasted of creating 'sleepers' for later disruption: "she took a bullet for the team... but where one has fallen, a dozen more ripen on the vine." Presumably Craigleithian was one such 'sleeper' created for later sock-puppet abuse.

For those who have been around the Marsden page, this is all sadly familiar. In March, after a month edit warring over the article, Bourrie nominated the RM entry for deletion [117]. The result, unsurprisingly, was speedy keep at 21:13, 4 March. Within a few hours, Bourrie created a sock, Isotelus, who immediately started a reversion war at RM (1RR, 6RR). Meanwhile Isotelus started a second AFD, voting delete as Isotelus, followed 5 minutes later by Bourrie, then shortly thereafter from another Ottawa IP.

Checkuser proved Isotelus was Bourrie, who was given an indefinite block, which was lifted once he had committed himself to limit himself to a single account.[118]

For the next month or so, Ceraurus made regular blankings, either as an anon-IP (Checkuser here) or as Ceraurus. On April 10-11, following a day of IP-blankings and a semi-protect, Ceraurus was caught using a checkuser-identified sock to break 3RR and was reblocked, this time indefinitely[119], a ban that several admins have reviewed but declined to lift.[120][121] [122][123]

Despite this ban, Ceraurus continued to blank large sections the Marsden page. On May 4, 142.78.64.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (National Library, consistent with Bourrie's usage, as is demonstrated by Bourrie's posts from 142.78.190.137, above) deleted the whole article except for two lines[124], which was then reverted more than a dozen times by Ottawa-based IPs consistent (e.g. 1RR, 8RR, 13RR, 14RR). This was finally brought to an end when an admin applied a semi-protect. When this was lifted a few days later, the IP-swarm began again (1RR, 5RR, 11RR, 15RR, etc.) Again, it ended with a semi-protect.

While this was going on socks were used for incivility [125] [126], trollishness [127], [128], personal attacks [129], [130], and vandalism of change patrollers who had done nothing else but revert what seemed like vandalism [131] [132] [133] [134]

Third Assertion: Tendentious editing

Last week, ArbComm also found Arthur Ellis guilty of "sustained tendentious editing". This also is familiar to those who were involved in editing the Rachel Marsden page last spring. Two examples:

• Bourrie/Ceraurus/Ellis often complained that articles in the Western Standard and a Fraser Institute publication were sources for the entry ([135], [136], [137]), a complaint repeated in Ellis' statement above. Beginning on Feb. 25, I began to re-source the entry from news reports contemporary to the events described ([138], [139], [140], [141], etc.). Once it became clear to Bourrie that improving the referencing made his argument about content less tenable, he began to delete the entire reference section as unnecessary and complain that the entry now had "ludicrous, overkill sourcing", starting a new reversion war.
• In late February 2006, it was reported in the news that the SFU swim team had been suspended for a sexualized hazing ritual. This team coached by Donnelly, whom Marsden had accused, and Bourrie inserted it in the article[142]. But Bourrie's chosen wording ("Donnelly was involved in a hazing controversy…", implied something that was not in the original reports, which made clear that he wasn't there. This clearly didn't belong in a bio of Marsden, as I explained in talk[143]. I also pointed out his specific wording was potentially defamatory ([144]). Bourrie insisted [145]; I resisted [146]; then he revealed his motivation: "[the hazing story] leaves some doubt that the whole SFU story came out." This is the very definition of tendentious: irrelevant detail included in a misleading way in order to insert a doubt into the readers' minds.

Fourth Assertion: many of AE's specific complaints are trivial, tendentious, and/or misleading

In both his initial complaint and in the evidence sections, Ellis provides a long list of supposed misdeeds of numerous editors, including me. Most are too trivial to discuss; many are just plain wrong; some are extremely misleading. In his request for arbitration, for example, he complained that I had set up a spin-off article John Stubbs "as part of a campaign to smear Marsden " Follow the link. How is that article a smear? Two examples from his evidence:

"Here, [18], Bucketsofg uses an anonymous source in a blog to make it appear Marsden falsified her resume. Here, Bucketsofg changes "sexual harrassment" to "date rape" based on a story he clipped from a newspaper in Kitchener, Ontario (some 2,000 miles from Vancouver) and stored in his own web site[19]."

Follow reference 18 and you'll find that the blog is that of Antonia Zerbisias, a journalist who blogs about media for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation daily; Zerbisias cites a story in the National Post (Canada's national conservative daily) on Marsden. That story found a number of exaggerations about her past. One of the items discussed was a claim that she had been Connie Chung's assistant. The reporter phoned ABC, who denied that Marsden had ever been on the payroll. (The reference has subsequently changed so the National Post is cited directly, rather than through Zerbisias' blog.) It is not me "making it appear that Marsden falsified her resume" (an episode was part of the page before my first entry there [147]), but me re-editing a pre-existing passage to link a national newspaper that is quoted in the blog of another paper.

As for the edit "date rape" in place of "sexual harassment" in his reference 19, the sources say "date rape": a search for "date rape" and "Rachel Marsden" in lexis-nexis produces 18 items, all of them describing the accusation against Donnelly. In one of them the president of the university is quoted as saying: "There was a finding that Ms. Marsden experienced date rape." Why a citation from a Kitchener paper, 2000 miles away? Because, as I explained at the time, when faced with a choice of references, unless one source was clearly superior, I chose the earliest. Is it a problem that the story was published 2000 miles away? No, this paper is part of the Toronto Star's national syndicate. For some reason that I don't understand, the story was entered under the KW paper rather than a Vancouver one, where the date-line places its writing.

Obviously it would not be a sensible use of space to rebutt Ellis' allegations one-by-one. If ArbComm has any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Fifth Assertion: The Rachel Marsden article is consistent with BLP

The key relevant policies in the WP:BLP are verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view.

The current article is sourced to mainstream contemporary newsmedia for all important details and is therefore verifiable. Nor is this original research: the parts of this article that Ellis wants changed do not expand or subtract from the record as it exists in well established secondary sources. (Those of the ArbComm with access to lexis-nexis can confirm this by searching Rachel Marsden for 1997 and pick an article at random.)

NPOV is about presenting all relevant interpretations of the data, which the current entry does: Marsden's explanations of various aspects in the Donnelly case should be included, for example, where they too can be sourced: and they have been. Ellis argues that we should ignore these sources. But to do would itself be a breach of WP:NOR. Wikipedia can report only what is verifiable from reliable secondary sources. The presentation of that material can surely be improved, and anyone who reads the articles and sees a way to improve it should.

Evidence presented by 209.217.119.10 13:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bucketsofg obsession with Bourrie

I find it distressing that Bucketsofg throws Dr. Bourrie's name around Wikipedia with such abandon, while taking such great pains on the web and Wikipedia to protect his own identity. There is considerable speculation in Canadian political circles that Bucketsofg is a close associate of, or is actually, Warren Kinsella, since the causes Bucketsofg espouses (attacking Tories and Paul Martin; protecting Kinsella, silencing Kinsella critics) fit perfectly with Kinsella's agenda.209.217.119.10 13:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators, keep your eye on the ball

Bucketsofg was able to dazzle you with IP rubbish in the Warren Kinsella arbitration. Don't let him do it again here. What's more important, truth or process? If you think this is the kind of article Wikipedia should publish, find for Bucketsofg and his friends. If it is an embarassment to Wikipedia, find for Ellis and reconsider the Warren Kinsella decision.142.78.190.137 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bucketsofg chooses only negative material

Bucketsofg, operating a web site called Bucketsofdata, selectively chooses material from Lexis-Nexis, copies it ilegally, stores it in the web site, then uses it to back up his smear on Marsden. Pro-Marsden material is, of course, never chosen.142.78.190.137 14:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Article focuses obsessively on Marsden's personal life

There is virtually nothing in this article about Marsden's work as a pundit.142.78.190.137 14:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Article ignores Marsden's defence in Donnelly case

There's nothing in the article dealing with the fact Marsden knew her way around Donnelly's apartment and why the university allowed her to keep a substantial cash settlement.142.78.190.137 14:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy" re: Boyd

As written, it doesn't make any sense.142.78.190.137 14:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sticks and Stones

If the article is to contain quotes from this documentary, it should have representative material from Marsden's many other TV appearances. 142.78.190.137 14:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ianking

First assertion: Jimbo's comments refer to ancient revision

On Septeber 15/16, 2005, Jimbo said on the talk page that he found the article overly negative[148]. Marsden and Bourrie take this statement as gospel despite the fact that his comments are over a year old and that the article has been revised some 1300 times since then. As the diff shows, the article is much better sourced and written in a more subdued tone. Of all the editors named in this case, only one, Bearcat, had edited the article at the time Jimbo made those comments.[149]

Second assertion: Article sources extend beyond the Fraser Institute and WS

It is impossible for the article to rely on those two articles to the extent Bourrie and Marsden assert. First, David Finley's report for the Fraser Institute covers only part of the article's scope. The report was published in August of 1998 and deals only with the Donnelly case. It is cited once, in the Donnelly section. While the Fraser Institute's leanings are well-known, it's possible to tease facts out of an ideological think-tank's reports.

The Western Standard article is based on published, verifiable reports from 1997-2004, has not been retracted or corrected, and is also cited exactly once in the article. There are some two dozen cited sources in the article, so it can hardly be said to rely on those two articles. This allegation is more appropriate to version of September 15, 2005. (Ironically, that revision came from an editor Ellis/Bourrie now praises). Bourrie and Marsden are arguing against the article of this time last year, not its current version.

Third assertion: Arthur Ellis / Mark Bourrie's bias

Bourrie misrepresented his relationship with Marsden to editors. Although he claimed no connection on the talk page[150], he described Marsden as "a friend" on his weblog some months earlier. [151] (Google cache.) The ArbComm found in a previous case that Arthur Ellis had previously edited as Mark Bourrie and his varied alter-egotists.

Bourrie has not been above blanking large amounts of sourced material, as others have noted. He's also included irrelevant information, such as including a story about a hazing scandal at the SFU swim team despite there being no evidence that Liam Donnelly had anything to do with it.[152]

Bourrie inserted incorrect information into the article when it suited his purposes. In one edit, he inflated the Toronto Sun's circulation (it's 180,000 weekday, 300,000 on Sunday)[153], and claimed it was the largest conservative daily in the country (the National Post has highercirculation and wider distribution), while downplaying the Standard's circulation by including only paid figures and further editorializing, calling it struggling regional publication. In essence, Bourrie/Ellis is using a double standard.

Fourth assertion: Irrelevant and unconfirmed material removed when challenged

Bourrie and Marsden claim that a cabal of editors prevent negative and untrue material from being removed. This is not so; while I have reverted their attempts to blank verifiable and relevant material, dubious content has been removed and not reinserted after Bourrie coherently artgued why it should not be in the article.

The article once stated that Marsden was "fired" by the National Post. Bourrie protested (loudly) that there was no sourced material to provide evidence that Marsden was fired.[154] The other editors agreed, and the consensus was that the article simply note her brief time at the Post.

For some time, the article noted that Marsden's father, a now-retired high school teacher, was suspended by the B.C. College of Teachers (not the school board) and later pleaded guilty to sexually exploiting a student. Bourrie argued it wasn't relevant to the article's subject[155] and it was subsequently removed.

As an aside, Bourrie later doubted the connection between the Marsdens, despite it being widely reported. Had he bothered to do even minimal research (something he accuses everyone else of not doing), he'd have found several reports, like the following:

• Rachel Marsden's dad accused (John Colebourn, The Province, Jan 17, 1999. p. A4)
• Marsden's father hit with teaching ban: B.C.'s College of Teachers suspends his licence for inappropriate conduct with female students (Janet Steffenhagen, The Vancouver Sun, Jun 10, 1999, p. A5)
• Teacher admits sex exploitation (Gordon Clark, The Province, Dec 16, 1999. p. A40)

There was also the matter of the sudden end of Marsden's employment with Gurmant Grewal. The end of her work for Grewal coincided with news reports that she was working in his office under an assumed name. Initial reports were that she'd been fired, Grewal says he ran out of work for her. The article states Grewal's explanation and avoids speculation.

Fifth assertion: Article does not contradict newspaper corrections

In their statements, Ellis/Bourrie and Marsden pointed to four newspaper corrections [156] originally posted to the talk page by Mark Bourrie, who was at the time using the Isotelus sockpuppet.[157] Let's go through them one by one. In all four points, when I refer to 'the article', I'm referring to the Wikipedia article, not the newspaper articles to which the corrections were issued.

1. The article reads "Grewal explained that the timing of the termination was a coincidence and that Marsden had completed the work for which she was hired" and does not refer to Marsden as a 'convicted stalker.'
2. Same as the first part of (1) above.
3. The article does not say that Marsden was found to have harassed Donnelly, but states that the investgation cast doubt on Marsden's veracity, referencing the report written by mediator Stephen Kelleher for SFU as part of the scandal's aftermath.
4. The article does not say that Marsden took the case to the media (the newspaper got their roles mixed up, the wikipedia article does not), so this correction's inclusion in Bourrie's list is puzzling.

Despite the fantasies of Marsden and Bourrie (both of whom should know better), the newspaper corrections applied to specific statements in the contested newspaper reports; they were not wholesale retractions of the reports in question, nor are they in any way inconsistent with the wiki article.

Sixth assertion: Stalking allegations relevant, do not violate BLP

Bourrie's and Marsden's interpretation of BLP is a curious one. They allege that the article contians libelous material without showing where any statements on the page are false or defamatory. Anything of the sort should be removed. But what Bourrie/Ellis and his socks have been blanking is verifiable and relevant, effectively, they're trying to sweep Marsden's misdeeds under the rug. (Memo to Ms. Marsden: the term "slander" is not what you're looking for; try "libel", then kindly explain how anything in the article could be construed as such.)

What Bourrie (and his alter-ego Ellis) has ignored is that Marsden is herself a public figure because of her own chosen path in becoming a political commentator, one who seeks out high-profile engagements and TV appearances. WP:BLP#Public_figures notes that for public figures, allegations can be mentioned if published by a reliable source, even if the subject dislikes all mention of it. Neil Boyd's and Patricia O'Hagan's complaints were widely reported in the Vancouver media (both print and broadcast) at the time. None of those stories were retracted or corrected, nor the allegations withdrawn.

I would be inclined to remove an old allegation if it was an isolated incident and considerable time had passed without any similar incident. This is not the case; Marsden was twice accused of stalking between the Donnelly and Morgan affairs, before stalking Mike Morgan in 2002. The repeated pattern of stalking and alleged obsessive behaviour works against merely writing it all off as youthful indiscretion.

Seventh assertion: Little positive about Marsden reported

A search of the Canadian NewsStand database (Canadian metro dailies from 1989 to present) for articles where Marsden is mentioned in the citation or document text returns 392 results. Less than 20 are not related to her involvement in her harassment controversies, employment with Gurmant Grewal, National Post columns, letters in response to columns or her father's sexual exploitation case. Of the remaining articles, they by and large contain offhand references to Marsden antics. The article isn't drawn from a selective culling of articles as Ellis/Bourrie alleges--it's drawn from what exists. The fact is that there's been almost nothing positive published about her. Editors have searched for other sources such as the Canada Free Press where Marsden is praised and included them in the article, without citing more dubious sources in an effort to achieve some sort of false balance.

Marsden has written over 400 columns and articles, all of which are on the public record and in the public domain. To say that all you can find are "20 that aren't related to harassment controversies" is laughable.

IanKing/Bearcat/Bucketsofg show their own bias

Just read the rage at Marsden, the frantic anger in their posts. What more is there to say? This type of biased writing and editing will eventually kill Wikipedia. First they drive away anyone who doesn't think like them, then they cut and paste the most negative material they can find on their percieved enemies, torque it beyond all reason, and use Wiki process to keep things their way.209.217.119.10 18:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)