Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Workshop

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

Request for Checkuser

Since sock-puppetry has been a problem both in the Marsden article historically and in this very arbitration case presently, where anon-IPs matching Arthur Ellis' agenda and characteristics have been active, I recommend that the arbitrators run such checkusers as are appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed Bucketsofg✐ 13:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant to arbitration re: long-term POV editing of Rachel Marsden. Arthur Ellis 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Very much not irrelevant to the matter. Bearcat 23:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, then. Let's do checkusers on Bucketsofg/Weideraufbau/Bogman2 too. Arthur Ellis 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Request that these pages be semi-protected

While it is obviously the case that the ArbComm process should be open to the community and to "passers-by", anonymous IPs have engaged in disruption and trollishness. A semi-protect would greatly ameliorate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Given that the prospect of a semi-protect and Thatcher's comment has temporarily ended the disruption, I withdraw this proposa.. (I hope I will not have to withdraw my withdrawal). Bucketsofg✐ 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. Just because non-registered users write things that this cabal does not want to read does not warrant semi-protect. These guys are pretty active at using admin tools to silence others. That's the point I've been trying to make. Arthur Ellis 18:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please show evidence of trollishness. The only person to break the rules on these pages is Bearcat, who posted answers on the "evidence" page on other people's sections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.78.190.137 (talk • contribs)

You can stuff the allegations that I deliberately broke any rules; I was neither the first nor the last person to do that, and you can hardly fault somebody for not being fully familiar with the process when they've never had any reason to get familiar with it before. Bearcat 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis is restricted to his account per his prior arbitration case. Plus, we wouldn't want anyone else who happens to live in Ottawa to be able to post here giving the (possibly false) impression that he is Ellis. I think one could therefore make a case that all contribs by anon IPs be removed. If Arthur has something to say, he can log in and say it. You might get a clerk to do this, maybe. In any event, this case is probably on the back burner until the Giano mess is sorted out. Thatcher131 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia policy is that all editors should log in and have a user name, it should set up the site so it works that way. Don't blame me or try to tarnish my name because IPs are allowed to post on Wikipedia. I didn't set the policy.Arthur Ellis 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) The Rachel Marsden entry be edited to remove all allegations more than five years old that have not been adjudicated by a court or tribunal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Adjudicated by a court or tribunal" is not the standard for inclusion of any mention of a criminal allegation whatsoever — it's the standard by which one determines whether a criminal allegation is to be treated as a proven fact or as an allegation, and the article is already quite clear about maintaining the distinction between an allegation and a conviction. Whether Rachel likes it or not, the simple reality is that the fact that such allegations were made, regardless of their status in court, is a significant chunk of what she's notable for in the first place — even if she hadn't gone on to become a newspaper columnist and Fox News pundit, she would still merit a Wikipedia article just for the Donnelly case alone. Any encyclopedia article on Rachel Marsden that didn't mention this stuff would be essentially worthless.

It is also necessary to note that Mark Bourrie and his sock drawer have never previously proposed "adjudicated by a court or tribunal" as the standard for inclusion; in his past edits to the article, he consistently removed even the allegation that was adjudicated in a court of law. So it's a nice little principle, but it hasn't been the core of the dispute. Bearcat 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Support I agree with the above assessment about dropping the SFU/Donnelly content, particularly given that none of the SFU/Donnelly related information was ever made public, as it was neither a court matter nor a public proceeding. Nor was it really that high profile, except perhaps, to the few Vancouver-based Wikipedia editors who seem intent on propagating this smear, even 10 years after the fact. This portion of the Wikipedia article relies SOLELY on media-based speculation that was sourced from (a) media articles, nearly all of which have since been retracted, as outlined in the "discussion" section of the Rachel Marsden Wikipedia article; as well as (b) one article written by an SFU business administration professor who knew nothing of the case and simply had an axe to grind with the Harassment Policy Office which had fired some of his colleagues; and (c) a single article written by my competition (a competing right-wing conservative magazine here in Canada) when they found out that I was hired by one of Canada's national newspapers...and they weren't. None of the information on the Donnelly/SFU case in this article is derived from any credible source. As such, it constitutes speculation at best and libel at worst, and I would think that an encyclopedic piece on Wikipedia would strive to achieve a higher standard than a run-of-the-mill gossip rag. Sincerely,RachelMarsden 03:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never lived outside of Ontario in my life, much less anywhere near Vancouver, and I got saturated in media coverage of the Marsden/SFU/Donnelly affair, without even trying to. So how was it not high profile, exactly?

You know, despite what "Arthur Ellis" and you would like to believe, I really don't spend any amount of time thinking about you or trying to figure out ways to make your life difficult. I may disagree with you politically, but having never met you I have no idea what you're like as a person, and I've had close friends whom I've disagreed with as strongly as I may disagree with you. Political disagreements do not automatically constitute hate or POV; they can just as easily represent playful banter between lifelong friends. The idea that I have some kind of animus against you just because I'm an NDPer simply doesn't wash; I may disagree with conservatives but that doesn't mean I hate any of you. (Okay, I'm no fan of Stephen Harper, but from what I've read neither are you.)

Nobody in this dispute either knows or cares who was or wasn't guilty of what between you and Donnelly; anybody who knows who you are already has their own opinions about you — you don't leave many people indifferent, let's put it that way — and nobody's mind is going to be changed by editorializing. What's relevant is the facts, and the fact is that there was a dispute, which got significant media coverage. The article doesn't say you did anything wrong; it states what Donnelly's allegations against you were, and then gives just as much time to what your allegations were against Donnelly. But unfortunately, whether you like it or not, this stuff is already on the public record, and Wikipedia didn't put it there.

WP policy explicitly states that properly sourced negative material stays in your article whether you like it or not. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that what you want your article to say about you is not a permissible consideration.

And you may be interested to know that I've personally toned down POV editorializing in your article. I don't know how much clearer I can be that I really don't have any interest in trying to make you look bad; as an administrator, my only interest is in ensuring that Wikipedia policy doesn't get ripped to shreds by people who want to use it as a public relations machine rather than an objective encyclopedia.

Would you recommend that Wikipedia remove any mention of Monica Lewinsky from Bill Clinton's article on the grounds that it's lurid gossip that isn't relevant to his job performance? Nah, I didn't think so. Bearcat 10:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But in your world, Monica Lewinski would take up 95% of the article.209.217.119.10 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Bearcat 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Retractions, Rachel? Please. There are no wholesale retractions -- can you actually produce evidence that the stories were retracted in full? There were corrections to isolated parts of each newspaper story, and no part of the Wikipedia article is inconsistent with those corrections -- not with regards to how your gig with Grewal ended, your conditional discharge, or with regards to who approached the media in the Donnelly case. Ianking 18:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This type of flippant disrespect of bio subjects comes through very clearly in the article.Arthur Ellis 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

opposed. Bucketsofg✐ 13:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Donnelly case is a 10-year-old sexual harassment case that was never adjudicated. Its noteworthiness in 2006 is pretty questionable. The other "allegations" would not, on their own, be encyclopedia material about anyone. The fact that the claims were not adjudicated was inclused in an edit but removed from the article by the Bucketsofg/Bearcat/Geedubber cabal.Arthur Ellis 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

False; the fact that the other claims were not adjudicated in a court of law is explicitly noted in the article as currently written. The fact that the Donnelly case didn't go to court does not make it non-notable; it was national news, singlehandedly made Marsden a household name in Canada, and directly led the university to radically revise its entire sexual harassment policy. It's about as far from questionable noteworthiness as one can get. Bearcat 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an old story, and one that never, to my satisfaction, has been fully explained. She is not a household world in Canada. She might have some notoriety at her old university and among some Canadian academics, but since neither side was proven to be telling the truth or lying, the article and related articles unfairly portray Marsden as a liar and a stalker, and Donnelly as the innocent party. Even, just reading the material used to source this article, a fair-minded person could come to the conclusion that, at most, the vindication he received occured because of O'Hagan's unprofessionalism. Arthur Ellis.

It may be an old story, but it's a notable one. And as written, the article quite explicitly avoids taking sides regarding what happened between Marsden and Donnelly; it casts neither party as either the guilty or the innocent one, but simply notes what actually happened as a result of the investigation. Be it the right thing or the wrong thing, what happened is what happened and it's not for Wikipedia to cast judgement on that. And the very next section of the article quite explicitly discusses how O'Hagan crossed professional boundaries in investigating the case. Far from discrediting Marsden, the article as written quite explicitly allows for the possibility that the allegations against her were not based in fact, but the fact that the allegations were made, got considerable media coverage, and are quite well known — Marsden is most certainly not known only to academics and people associated with SFU — makes them notable regardless of their adjudication status. The only thing the article can't do is claim that her guilt or innocence has been legally determined in cases where it hasn't...and guess what? The article doesn't do that; as written, it leaves the possibility of her innocence quite explicitly open. Bearcat 23:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have only become "notable" when she got a job as a columnist on a major paper, and all the unemployable lefties went after her. No one thought it was worth an entry until she got her job at the National Post. This was just an attempt to dig up dirt. Arthur Ellis 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think people can decide whether it's a smear job for themselves by reading the article. Arthur Ellis 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who started dictating how people should read the article, not me. Bearcat 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the stuff about O'Hagan crossing professional boundaries. I suppose you might find Marsden's case in the footnotes, where the Bucketsfg cabal moved most of it.Arthur Ellis 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question to Bucketsofg

Is the blog Buckets of Data yours? Fred Bauder 21:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is mine. As you may have gathered, during the summer of 2005 I gained some notoriety for a blog on the Grewal tapes. At about the same time, someone else began a blog called grewalchronology.blogspot.com, in which she entered as many news stories (recent and historical) about Grewal as she could find, and she eventually invited me to add material. Each story was entered under its original publication date. Given that the theme was Grewal, articles about Grewal and Marsden found their way in. The early editors of the Marsden article linked to one or two of those Grewal-Marsden stories. (The first such link is 15 August 2005.) I didn't know about those links until I began editing Marsden in late Feb. 2006. At that point it struck me that these links weren'tt necessarily secure, since although I had sufficient permission to edit chronologygrewal, I did not actually control it. I therefore imported the contents into bucketsdata (which I could control) and started converting these old links to it. As I started editing the Donnelly case, I added new articles to bucketsdata that seemed relevant to bucketsdata. A table of contents for the Marsden material can be seen here: http://bucketsdata.wordpress.com/marsden-article-archive. Bucketsofg 02:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

• All allegations against Rachel Marsden that have not been adjudicated by a court of law or legally-constituted tribunal be removed from the entry. Arthur Ellis 19:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

SupportRachelMarsden

Proposed principles

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biographies of living persons

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed Bucketsofg✐ 00:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Arthur Ellis 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. RachelMarsden

Comment by others:

Article is an attempt to harm Marsden's career

1) The article was started at the same time Marsden began writing a column in a major Canadian newspaper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposedArthur Ellis 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reject. Fails WP:AGF Bucketsofg 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article

2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry. At Rachel Marsden, this means responsible, balanced, encyclopedic tone must be extended not merely to Marsden, but to Donnelly, O'Hagan, and any other individual mentioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Bucketsofg✐ 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Then best to either not take sides or take it all out. Arthur Ellis 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreewith Arthur Ellis' suggestion RachelMarsden

Agree with Buckets; note in response to Ellis that the article as written is already in accordance with his suggestion, as it already doesn't take sides. Bearcat 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Verifiability, not truth

1) Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_not_truth states that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Geedubber 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read down to this line in Wiki: Bios of Living People: "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."Arthur Ellis 17:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That line refers specifically to non-public figures. Marsden is both a voluntary and involuntary public figure. From Public figure, "A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of unwanted publicity. A person accused of a high profile crime may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established on this basis. A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest" Geedubber 19:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sources in this instance were not reliable: mainly some selected news reports (some of which were corrected); a report from a "think tank", written by someone with a vested interest (a prof at the university where Marsden complained of sexual harassment); and a magazine article written by a competitor. Arthur Ellis 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One retracted statement in an article does not invalidate the whole article as a source; it invalidates the retracted statement as a source. Not a single sentence in the article relies on a statement that any media outlet has retracted when writing about Marsden. Again: the article does not claim that she was convicted of anything she hasn't been convicted of; it merely notes the indisputable fact that the allegations were made. Bearcat 21:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This statement is misleading. The article relies on a selection of anti-Marsden clippings, the Fraser Institute report, and the Western Standard article, along with one hostile TV interview. User:Bearcat barely addresses the newspaper article issue and chooses to ignore the rest, which is rather typical of his selective use of sources. Arthur Ellis

I was specifically addressing the false claim that the article relied on retracted or "corrected" sources; not a single fact cited in the article relies on a source statement that has ever been retracted or "corrected". And for the record, claiming that the Fraser Institute and/or the Western Standard are discredited sources because you say so is pretty well an organizational variant of an ad hominem attack; you'd also be the first self-declared conservative in history to claim that the Fraser Institute could ever be a non-credible source on anything whatsoever. Bearcat 22:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have explained several times why the Fraser Institute report and the Western Standard article are not solid sources. You choose not to address the issues. Here they are again: 1. The Fraser Institute article was written by a Simon Fraser professor who campaigned against the sexual harassment system; and 2. The Western Standard article was written and published by Marsden's competitors in the conservative punditry business and has outright libel in the title (see evidence). I do not believe the Fraser Institute and the Western Standard operate at a level of scholarship that I would feel comfortable with in my corner were I being sued for libel. That's my threshold when dealing with material involving living people.Arthur Ellis 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, a professor who campaigned against the sexual harassment policy brought in as a result of Marsden's case would be expected, on bias grounds, to favour Marsden, not oppose her. For another, as I've already noted elsewhere in this discussion, journalism is not a competition; you have yet to provide any viable evidence for the conclusion that Kevin Steel should somehow be viewed as a competitor of Marsden's. A competitor for what, the last free seat in the cafeteria? The last free spot on a Stephen Harper press conference list? A competitor for what? It's simply absurd and not at all NPOV to view or treat journalists as being each other's competitors; that isn't how journalism works. If it were, then no source on Marsden would ever be permissible, because it would all be written by "competitors". Bearcat 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As Bearscat says at talk: Gerald Hannon, "NPOV does not mean we have to give all subjective opinions equal credibility; it means we report the actual known facts. Bearcat 00:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gerald_Hannon". Maybe Bearcat would like to apply the same zeal to protecting Marsden's reputation as he brings to Gerald Hannon. Arthur Ellis 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That happens to be exactly what I'm doing; the actual known facts in this case are that several people alleged that Marsden harassed them. The "subjective opinion" in the matter would be assumptions about her guilt or innocence; the known facts are that the allegations were made. This article, as written, does not make a single statement that constitutes a subjective opinion; it sticks to the known facts that the allegations were made. Bearcat 18:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people talk a lot of smack. That doesn't mean that it meets the standard of Funk and Wagnalls, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc...nor should it meet that of Wikipedia, if that is indeed the standard this project aims to achieve. RachelMarsden

Gerald Hannon is an admitted prostitute who has been alleged by "important" newspaper journalists to advocate men/boy sex. Marsden, at most, got into a he-said /she- said fight over sexual harassment allegations, signed a guy up for a Playboy subscription, made many phone calls to a woman she thought was a friend, and re-routed the e-mails of a guy who dumped her. Yet Bearcat brings up the spectre of libel on Hannon's talk page, while torquing (with his friends) the Marsden article. His POV is proven. Let's move on. Arthur Ellis 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The very inclusion of the word "arguably" in your assessment of Gerald Hannon's work shows that you're conflating the known facts with POV opinion — the fact is that Hannon is not an endorser of man/boy sex; he's an endorser of "social conservatives need to stop conflating pedophilia with homosexuality", who has been misrepresented as an endorser of pedophilia because he writes about pedophilia objectively rather than with the visceral gut-level revulsion that most people expect of writing that in any way touches upon the topic. And for the record, I don't personally like Gerald Hannon; I think the way he conducted himself in that whole affair exacerbated the controversy tremendously. But I don't have much respect for those who misrepresented the nature of his writing, either, and there's no place in either article for my personal opinions of the subjects. The point is, however, that both Hannon's and Marsden's articles, as written, stick to the known facts and avoid POV editorializing. And by the by, the only person in this entire debate who's in any way a friend of mine is Samaritan, he whom you credit elsewhere in this debate as one of the "softeners" (and even he never once supported eliminating any mention of the allegations in question.) Bearcat 19:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all published sources are good sources

1) Sources that show signs of bias, i.e. written by participants in an event, by special interest groups, and by competitors of the subject involved should be carefully weighed for bias. Proposed by Arthur Ellis 17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How exactly does Kevin Steel, the author of the Western Standard article in question, qualify as a competitor of Rachel's? Again, you're making a statement with an underlying tone of "it's true because I say so"; you need to cite specific reasons for viewing him that way. Journalists are not automatically each other's competitors just because they're both journalists. And not a single source quoted in the article is attributed to a direct participant in any of the Marsden allegations. Which leaves us with special interest groups, and other than the same old "because I say so" trick, you still have yet to prove that the Fraser Institute's objectivity on Marsden was somehow compromised. And beyond all that, you're proposing that Wikipedia institute a policy which (a) it already has, and (b) you have yet to prove that the article in dispute is in any way contravening. Bearcat 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis is indeed correct. The Western Standard is, in fact, my direct competition. I have a larger readership than they do, a much higher US profile (by virtue of my work for Fox News, the New York Post and United Press International, and was hired by one of Canada's two national newspapers while they were all overlooked for the job. In fact, it was my hiring into that job that resulted in the Western Standard article (a fact that is quite clear when you read the article itself and the author focuses on my new job). Sincerely, RachelMarsden 03:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're personally in competition with an entire magazine? Wowza. Bearcat 10:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to ask Bearcat and Bucketsofg if they have ever used the Western Standard and/or the Fraser Institute as sources on any other article they've edited (or find one time that I have used either, for that matter). I'll drop the whole thing if they can each produce one entry from the hundreds and hundreds they've worked on. As well, Bucketsofg mocks the Fraser Institute on his Bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com blog. Can't have it both ways.Arthur Ellis 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that outside of my role as an administrator, the vast majority of the writing I contribute to Wikipedia involves arts topics (music, literature, media), there isn't a place for Western Standard or the Fraser Institute as a source in most of what I do. A more germane question would be whether I've ever removed those as sources when other people have added them; the answer to that is no, though I have occasionally rewritten POV editorializing that cited those sources' opinions as fact. And on the question of whether I would use them as sources if they were relevant to a topic I was writing about, it would rather depend on whether the citation in question was a known fact or a POV political opinion, not on whether or not I agree with them in principle. Bearcat 19:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it this muddled answer (I don't write on Wikipedia and never have. I've always been an admin) and Bucketsofg's silence = "no".209.217.119.10 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you get "I don't write on Wikipedia and never have" out of what I actually said, which is "the vast majority of the writing I contribute to Wikipedia involves arts topics"? Bearcat 17:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the principle--all sources have to be judiciously evaluated. AE's application, however, is tendentious. In the current version of the article, the Western Standard is only cited as evidence that conservative media is divided on Marsden: the NP and the Sun have hired her, and the Western Standard has been critical: the best evidence of the Standard's criticism is its own article. Bucketsofg✐ 16:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I also support using reliable sources (which the article currently does). Geedubber 01:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Check your politics at the door

1) Wikipedia editors should not bring their political campaigns and/or biases to an editing debate. Admins who are part of an ongoing political campaign (i.e. Bucketsofg with his bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com site) should refrain from any involvement in editing Wikipedia entries related to the people involved in their campaign.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Arthur Ellis 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on Arthur Ellis to prove that any editor involved in this dispute has brought their own political biases into the matter by citing specific examples of biased editing. As it stands, this is a purely ad hominem argument which is impossible to disprove: Buckets is biased because he's Buckets, I'm biased because I have an NDP userbox on my userpage, and pay no attention to the fact that there isn't a single edit by either of us anywhere in the article that has ever been claimed to be "biased" by anyone whose surname wasn't Marsden or Bourrie. Also, this line of attack is especially rich coming from somebody who's had an RFA against him for doing the very thing to other articles that he decries in this case. Bearcat 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bucketsofg has a personal bias and POV, proven by his owenership of the anonymous Bucketsofg site, which he operated before he brought his campaign to Wikipedia. User:Bearcat's POV is obvious to anyone who reads the article discussion pages and the co0mments he posted in his edit summaries (i.e. "if there was a category for bullshit artists..."). Marsden certainly has the right to comment and complain about this article. In fact, she has shown considerable restraint, considering this mess is the first thing that comes up when you google "Rachel Marsden". As for the Bourrie fixation, I suppose he was the second gunman in the JFK assissination, toon. Arthur Ellis.

Wikipedia does not prohibit expressing an opinion on a talk page; it prohibits letting your opinions influence your edits to the article itself. You simply cannot point to a single time when either Buckets or I inserted a personal opinion into the article, because there haven't been any such examples, which is why you're stuck on this ad hominem thing you still haven't gotten off of. Oh, and let's never mind the fact that Gurmant Grewal actually screwed up and did something that backfired and left him discredited; naturally that reflects badly on Buckets rather than on Grewal! Blame the messenger!

And furthermore, I have never, ever made a single comment on the article's talk page, either positive or negative, about Marsden as a person; my comments on the talk page have been purely on the level of Wikipedia policy. I made one ill-advised edit summary once in the article's entire history, I admit — and it was attached to an edit in which all I did was add her to a Canadian occupational category, which is probably the single least open-to-bias thing any Wikipedia editor could possibly do to an article. And, for that matter, it was a joke in which I explicitly acknowledged the difference between what I might think of her personally and what I could actually insert into an article about her — I'm most certainly not known around Wikipedia as a person who has a problem separating those two things. As I've pointed out to you before, I've even had social conservatives come to me to NPOV biographies of gay activists — and I'm an openly gay man.

As for the Bourrie "fixation", nobody asserted anything about the JFK assassination...but if you're admitting some kind of involvement with that comment, then that's really quite fascinating for you. Bearcat 22:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The tone of your posts betrays your POV. Arthur Ellis 01:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation: "Because I say so. Never mind that I can't cite an actual example of how this is true." Bearcat 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as tendentious. Bucketsofg✐ 01:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Allegations of minor offences are not, in themselves, items of notability

1) Old allegations of minor offecnces should not be treated as proven facts and should not be proof of notability.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Arthur Ellis 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article as written does not treat a single unproven allegation as a proven fact; it treats unproven allegations as unproven allegations and proven facts as proven facts. Bearcat 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it strings a collection of unproven allegations together to try to discredit a conservative political columnist. It is a hatchet job. Arthur Ellis.

No, it discusses a series of allegations that were publicly laid against her in order to acknowledge that she's been controversial and has had allegations publicly laid against her. There's a difference there. Bearcat 22:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Publicly laid" allegations do not prove a person has been "controversial".Arthur Ellis 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But the fact that she's been controversial proves that she's been controversial. Bearcat 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

By this standard, I could start a blog or a newsletter that could be used to accuse John Doe, Esq. of being a liar and a fool, and it would be a legitimate source for Wikipedia.Arthur Ellis 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No; your blog would have to qualify as a notable media outlet by Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Bearcat 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Support RachelMarsden

Oppose as inconsistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV Bucketsofg✐ 01:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

CBC Documentary

1)The CBC documentary "Sticks and Stones" stuff should go. What makes the CBC think Marsden is an expert on the adversarial US cable news punditry system? Why is the fact that she told them to take a hike when they wanted to dredge up the SFY harassment case notable?Arthur Ellis 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support RachelMarsden

What makes it notable is the fact that she told them to take a hike two minutes after telling them that she had a right to criticize other people's personal lives. Rachel Marsden can't have it both ways; if other people's personal lives are fair game for her commentary, then her personal life is fair game for journalists; if her personal life "isn't relevant to what she does", then neither are the personal lives of those she criticizes. Bearcat 19:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I fail to see why one, single line out of a smear documentary by the most left-leaning media entity in Canadian journalism merits inclusion in a personal biography that's supposedly of encyclopedic calibre, when I do television interviews several times every week. Perhaps that one line may seem important to someone who has a political or personal axe to grind, but to the average person, I'm pretty certain that it wouldn't. Why not go through all of my hundreds of columns and television interviews and radio shows and pick out more than just that one line which (unsurprisingly, given the nature of what has transpired here on Wikipedia) relates only to my personal life? I can't help but notice that there isn't a single line in the entire Wikipedia entry that criticizes or attempts to quote any of my actual work. The obsession with some Wikipedia editors/participants with my sex and/or personal life has become quite tedious. Although my husband finds it rather amusing. Sincerely, RachelMarsden 03:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Characterizing the CBC as left-leaning, and/or questioning its credibility on that basis, is your POV; it is not an objective assessment that Wikipedia can apply in evaluating the legitimacy of a source. And by the by, as Canadian journalism goes, I could name you a dozen media outlets more left-leaning than the CBC right off the top of my head. If anything, the CBC's dominant ideology is complacency, not "leftism".
2. The obsession with some Wikipedia editors/participants with my sex and/or personal life has become quite tedious. Not nearly as tedious as your continued baseless assertions that any mention of the matter whatsoever reflects some kind of unhealthy and/or stalkerish obsession with your sex life. You'd do well to quit the ad hominem attacks and the amateur psychoanalysis and stick to what you're good at.
3. The fact remains that in that quote, you appear to hold people to a double standard; their personal lives are fair game for you, but yours is off limits. The "do as I say, not as I do" approach doesn't generally endow people with a whole lot of moral authority, in case you didn't know that. Bearcat 09:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Inconsistent with WP:NOR (which requires us to come to conclusions on the basis of reputable sources, not reject sources on the basis of some subjective criteria apparent only to one editor) Bucketsofg✐ 01:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources like the Western Standard, which call her a "convict" and a "fraud artist" in the title of the article, when she is, in fact, neither.Arthur Ellis 23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Keep digging, Bearcat, Are you sure you aren't a Boorie/Marsden sock?209.217.119.10 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Digging"? And yes, I'm sure I'm not a sockpuppet. Bearcat 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Abusive sock-puppetry

1) WP:SOCK forbids the use of socks to avoid the enforcement of community rules, to create the impression that views are more widely held, or to gain an advantage in edit or reversion wars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed Bucketsofg✐ 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant. to this case. Bucketsofg is very quick to erect straw men, while never dealing with the issue: the biased editing of this article. Arthur Ellis 18:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Again: the arbitrators are entitled to rule on and remedy any rule breach or tendentious behaviour that occurs within this dispute, whether it was contained in your original RFA request or not. As you're so fond of saying in other sections, it's for them to decide whether this is relevant, not you. Bearcat 02:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Respect for ArbComm Rulings

1) The Arbitration Committee is the final court within wikipedia and its decisions should be respected and abided by.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Bucketsofg✐ 23:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree'. Now the Arbs can lurve us both. Let's see how you feel about this in, say, November.Arthur Ellis 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hidden agendas and conflicts of interest

1) Wikipedia editors and administrators should not use Wikipedia as part of a larger political campaign. Arthur Ellis 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe Arthur Ellis's intention here is to say that editors and administrators should not use Wikipedia as part of a larger political campaign. That said, the only editor who's shown any evidence of doing so is Arthur Ellis. Bearcat 00:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if my name was BucketsofJackLayton, you might feel differently. (Jack Layton is leader of Canada's socialist New Democratic Party).Arthur Ellis 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no matter what your username was, I'd respond to you based on your edits, not your username. Nice little ad hominem, though. Bearcat 00:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. All editors should aim at creating articles that adhere to WP:NPOV, even if they have a POV; talk of hidden agendas, however, fails WP:AGF Bucketsofg 19:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hidden agendas and conflicts of interest

1) Wikipedia arbitrators should feel free to revoke admin status or to post admins for new scrutiny and recall by the community, with arbcom decisions published with the recall request.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Arthur Ellis 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bios of living people

1) Wikipedia editors with concerns about biographies of living people should get a fast hearing from arbitrators and should not be blocked from filing arbitrations. Blocks should prevent people from editing all except their own talk pages and Request for Arbitration page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Arthur Ellis 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Support RachelMarsden

Comment by others:

Outing

1. Members of the Wikipedia community should not "out" other editors or speculate on Wikipedia about the real identity of editors. In lieu of that decision, names of suspected editors should be treated with the same criteria used for Bios of Living People.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Arthur Ellis 18:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

An editor who's already involved in a personal dispute with an article subject outside of Wikipedia does not and should not have a right to hide behind anonymity in order to bring POV into Wikipedia. Bearcat 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is the case with Bucketsofg(rewal).Arthur Ellis 21:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's as may be. As things stand at this moment, however, he's not pitching a holy fit about the fact that somebody figured out who he actually was, and he has never, to the best of my knowledge, made any edits that failed either WP:V or WP:NPOV. Neither of which can be said of you. Bearcat 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite the line of reasoning, I must say. No one has "figured out" who I am, and I am only asking that Wikipedia admins (and everyone else) not indulge in outing and attempted outing. Seems reasonable to me. As for his (and your) edits violating WP:NPOV, let's let the arbitrators decide. Arthur Ellis 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of reliable sources

1) Wikipedia entries must be based on reliable published sources. An editor's personal disagreement with the consensus view of reliable sources is not a basis for the removal of well-sourced information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Bucketsofg✐ 02:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but material stored by Wikipedia editors to use as sourcing material must be available, in its entirety, to all other Wikipedia editors and the storage must not break copyright. Arthur Ellis 02:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Storage of a document in its original form does not and cannot constitute a copyright violation. Copyright applies to false attribution of the work, not to sticking the clipping in a database somewhere with its original attributions still on it. Bearcat 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actualy, you're thinking of plagiarism. Another reason why you should be de-sysoped.Arthur Ellis 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Storage of a document in its original form does not and cannot constitute a copyright violation; if it did, you'd have a right to sue every potential employer that ever kept your resume on file for six months after a job application. I'd love to know why you think this says or doesn't say anything about my administrative skills. Bearcat 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your skills are poor. You do not understand libel, copyright and plagiarism. To use your analogy, if I give you my resume, it's one thing. If you take it and use it without permission, it's a different story. If I give it to you and I ask for it back, you're obliged to give it to me because it is my property. In this case, Bucketsofg has removed material from Lexis-Nexis and stored it. Lexis-Nexis' user agreement forbids doing so (as does InfoGlobe and InfoMart). Of course, he's done this anonymously. And he has made Wikipedia a party in this. Arthur Ellis 15:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with my admin skills. Lexis-Nexis' user agreement does not fall under copyright law; L-N is not the copyright holder. If Buckets is violating L-N's terms of agreement (which isn't for me or you to decide), then that's between Buckets and L-N — it does not, however, raise copyright issues. Bearcat 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What the heck does this conversation have to do with this principle? There is nothing in the reliable source policy that says sources must be equally available to all parties. I'd like to see Arthur go around removing every citation of a book from every Wikipedia article based on the principle that other editors don't have immediate access to a copy. The point of the policy is to facilitate fact checking by providing source information, and standard citations do that.

In this specific case, Lexis-Nexis citations come from published sources. That's enough. For example, in Al Seckel I cited a number of Los Angeles Times newspaper articles that are old enough that they are not available through conventional online sources, but are available on LexisNexis. Nothing in the reliable source policy says I must maintain a copy of the article for others to check. If I provide the date and page number, there are many ways a motivated editor could get a copy to check, the simplest of which is to go to a large library and make an InterLibraryLoan request and pay a small fee. I am quite willing to concede that downloading a newspaper article from LexisNexis and storing it locally may be a violation of their terms of service and of the original copyright holders's copyright. So what we have here is a baldly disingenuous attempt to prevent editors from using older newspaper articles as reliable sources because (a) not all editors have immediate access to copies, and (b) providing immediate access to copies is not allowed. This is, frankly, and this is probably the first time I have used such strong language on Wikipedia, bullshit. Thatcher131 17:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple comments:

1. "Storage" of an article, does not violate copyright, at least under US law. Sending a copy to another wikipedia editor for verification would be a violation, unless the copy were permissible under fair use, license, or some other justification. This is fairly undisputed, but if anyone wants a more detailed analysis, let me know. It would be disappointing to see Arthur throwing around the insults above even if he were right - the fact that he is wrong makes it doubly disappointing, and I encourage Arthur to stick to the merits.
2. Wikipedia's verification policy and reliable source guidelines don't require that editors make their sources available to other editors, or that Wikipedia only cite to sources that are on-line. If you disagree with that, Arthur, the place to argue it is on the talk page for WP:V, not in ArbComm. It can be tough to check obscure but verifiable sources, but if you catch somebody hoaxing even one source, I don't think you'll have trouble rounding up a posse to check the others.

Thanks, TheronJ 17:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops - I misunderstood one point. Bear and Buckets, IMHO, Arthur is clearly right on one thing. Although storage of a copyrighted newspaper article is not a violation of copyright, publication is a copyright violation, at least under US law. Arthur is therefore right that Buckets shouldn't be linking to his own republication of newspaper articles.[1]. Per WP's copyright policy, editors may not link to pages that themselves appear to violate copyright. (Of course, none of that means that Buckets can't cite directly to the print copies - he just shouldn't link to copyvios on the web). TheronJ 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your formulation of the issues is convincing, Theron. I will remove the links. Bucketsofg 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Buckets, and good on you. TheronJ 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Arthur Ellis 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good faith acceptance of references

1) References may be made to sources which are not available online, provided they are available in libraries or a data-bases such as Lexis-Nexis. In the absence of evidence of mis-citation, editors' citations of such material is presumed to be sound.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Bucketsofg✐ 03:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but news articles containing counterpoints must also be sought, and defences and explanations by bio subjects must be placed in the article, not hidden in footnotes or left out altogether. Bucketsofg and his cabal, however, undermine this concept with their faux scholarship and outrageous POV. Arthur Ellis 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Their defenses and explanations have to be published in a verifiable source, and her side of the story is already quoted in the article. What we can't do is present only her side of the story, any more than we could present only her accusers' sides of the story. And we already don't present only her accusers' sides of the story; we already quote her side of the story as extensively as possible from the available sources. Bearcat 00:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Any fair-minded person who reads the article can see how one-sided it is.Arthur Ellis 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

1) WP:NPOV requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Bucketsofg✐ 04:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately, this article fails the test.Arthur Ellis 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I fully agree with Arthur Ellis' assessment with respect to this article. RachelMarsden

Read WP:AUTO. You can present your views, but as the subject of the article it's not within your right to state or dictate what should be the remedies here. Bearcat 09:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is. Who owns her reputation? Would you rather discuss it with her here or in court? I think it's generous of her to use this process. Arthur Ellis 21:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:AUTO. Read the part of BLP which explicitly states that what an article subject thinks about their own article is not a consideration that's permitted to override verifiable, properly sourced negative information that already exists on the public record. Bearcat 00:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Preserve information when correcting balance problems

WP editing policy states: "Whatever you do, try to preserve information... Alternatives include... adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced."

Comment by others:

Proposed Kla'quot 05:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rachel fans, the way to neutralize an article with lots of well-sourced negative information is to add to it. Sofixit and add in some verifiable information about the good deeds Rachel has done, the awards she's won or been nominated for, and the praise she's been given by notable people. Throw in a few quotes from Rachel's columns and TV appearances. If Rachel puts some more biographical information on rachelmarsden.com, it can be added to the Wikipedia article. If you haven't noticed, when you want something added to an article it's a lot faster to write it yourself than to complain about the people who (like you) haven't written it yet. Kla'quot 05:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that, over the past year, anything NOT related to personal libel, with the exception of a few bare-bones facts, has been edited out of this article...which is one of the reasons why it is currently going through the arbitration process. RachelMarsden

Support Bucketsofg 23:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. The article is already overly-long and filled with unimportant information added by POV editors. The libel in this article is like Holy Water: no matter how much is added to it, it cannot be diluted. Arthur Ellis 23:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The scope of ArbComm's interest

1) All participants in a case before the Arbitration Committee are subject to its decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Bucketsofg 14:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tangential to the issue at hand. Arthur Ellis 15:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

1) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires users to assume that other editors are acting in good faith unless there are reasonable grounds to believe otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Bucketsofg 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. But Bucketsofg has shown he has an agenda. Arthur Ellis 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate use of copyrighted material

1) Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others, a policy, provides that the information in copyrighted works, if properly cited, may be included in Wikipedia. This policy does not continence copying of the copyright work, only use of the information contained in it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Linking to copyrighted works

2) Wikipedia:Citing sources, a style guide, provides that if material from a copyrighted work is used in an article, the original source should be cited, with any intermediate source noted. However, if the intermediate source constitutes a copyright violation, it should not be linked to, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, a policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree. I realize now that I have broken this. (Theron's points above in 4.1.16 - "use of reliable sources" clarified this for me.) I was not aware of this policy at the time--though of course ignorance of the law is never an excuse. Bucketsofg 12:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have said this about the c.v. and the now-removed copyright picture. They were warned about this by Ceraurus, too. All I got was grief (see talk page, especially comments by Ian King, Bearcat). Thank you for finally dealing with this, Fred.Arthur Ellis 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Marsden article is in need of serious re-write

1)Rachel Marsden is written in ways inconsistent with Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Arthur Ellis 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. RachelMarsden

Opposed. The entry is far from perfect, but consistent with BLP. Bucketsofg✐ 01:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Prior case

1) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 02:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arthur Ellis violated ArbComm Remedies

1) The Kinsella-arbcomm-decision limited Arthur Ellis to the use of only one account and banned him from certain pages, including Warren Kinsella and Mark Bourrie. He has violated both several times.

The IPs that vandalized Kinsella and Kinsella-related pages are not mine. Bucketsofg is posting every IP attack as mine. This is a lie and a fabrication. Arthur Ellis 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Bucketsofg✐ 02:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Not relevant to quality and objectivity of Rachel Marsden.Arthur Ellis 21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It is relevant if it shows a disruptive pattern. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse conformity with the issues at hand here. Arthur Ellis 23:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting anything confused here... Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 19:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The IPs listed are not mine, except when I edited a page before I knew of the decision. This is more of Bucketsofg's dishonest disinformation, more proof he and his clique should be de-sysoped.Arthur Ellis

Several of the IPs have actually been linked to you by checkuser. And you have yet to satisfactorily explain how it is that a bunch of anon IPs, which all resolve to either Magma Communications or the National Library of Canada (both of which are located in the same city as you) have consistently been on your side on the same small group of articles, never edited Wikipedia before your disputes began, and have shown no interest in any other topic on Wikipedia — genuinely disinterested and objective anonymous WP editors simply do not behave that way. Which leaves us with two choices: either they're you ("sockpuppet"), or they're a friend of yours who's trying to help you ("meatpuppet"). Either way, they're puppets. And, for that matter, some of the anon IPs have actually signed their own edits as "Arthur Ellis". Bearcat 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I briefly considered the possibility that there was a "good Arthur" and a "bad Arthur," and that bad Arthur could be a Kinsella fan living in Ellis' hometown, knowledgable about Wikipedia, and making certain kinds of destructive edits for the purpose of getting good Arthur in trouble. How else to explain Ellis' determination to see WP:BLP enforced at Rachel Marsden while at the same time posting things like "Warren Kinsella is a psychopath." However, after a few minutes of checking I found three IP addresses used for "good Arthur" and "bad Arthur" edits on the same day, see User:Thatcher131/Sandbox3. (I stopped checking after three.) So much for that theory. Thatcher131 06:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There may also be others who -- like you -- agree with other people re: edits. You are far too quick to assume bad faith. If they agree with me, they're "meatpuppets", but if they agree with you, well, then that's OK. How many IP posters have put really vicious stuff on Marsden? If they are from Toronto or Vancouver, should I simply assume they're yours? Reminds me of the old saw about "Hey, you're from Canada? You know my uncle George in Thunder Bay?" I see you're callinguser Rachel Marsden a sock of mine. And reaching 300 miles away, to IPs in Hamilton, Ontario. If this is your defence for ther Marsden mess, perhaps your sysop status should be reviewed, too. Are we dealing with a cabal who have helped each other up to sysop status? And, if so, what can be done? Arthur Ellis 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try this again in different words: anonymous IP editors on Wikipedia do not just suddenly appear for the first time in the middle of a contentious debate, take one side or the other, and then miraculously follow the leader of that side of the debate into other contentious matters. That simply does not happen, especially anonymous IPs that come from the same city as said leader, continually take the same position as said leader, display the same writing style as said leader, sometimes sign their own edits as being from said leader, interpret the same Wikipedia policies in the same ways as said leader, and actually brag of themselves as a concerted team.

If there's one thing you learn as an administrator, for example, it's that truly new anonymous IP editors don't know Wikipedia policy from a hole in the head. They have to have things explained to them on their talk pages. An anonymous IP who knows, or thinks they know, our actual policies as well as these anons do is always either a puppet or an established editor whose system accidentally logged them out; in the entire time I've been on Wikipedia, there has never been a single anonymous IP editor of the genuine variety whose very first edit stepped right into a contentious dispute and already displayed extensive prior reading of Wikipedia policies and procedures. Nary a one. Bearcat 00:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bucketsofg bias

1) Bucketsofg has worked, with other editors and administrators, to maintain Rachel Marsden in ways inconsistent with Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Arthur Ellis 21:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. RachelMarsden

Opposed as untrue as to me, and the present article is consistent with WP:BLP Bucketsofg✐ 01:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bucketsofg hidden agenda

1)Bucketsofg has brought an off-Wikipedia campaign against Canadian MP Germant Grewal and his associates to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Arthur Ellis 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Support stating the obvious. His obsession (Grewal, my former client) is even his Wikipedia handle, for crying out loud. RachelMarsden

Opposed as untrue. Bucketsofg✐ 01:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Then who is Bucketsofgrewal, and why the obsession? At least three blogs, "Bucektsofg" here, the tenacity on Marsden, the attacks on me at Warren Kinsella when I challenged you on Marsden, the obsessive behaviour during the Kinsella arbitration. Just what is your game? Arthur Ellis 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on you at Warren Kinsella? I've only one edit on that page, and it was a minor rewording[2]. And you've never challenged me at Marsden--our only exchange there was quite amiable: [3] [4]. Bucketsofg 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: yet again, a smokescrean, and no answer. Arthur Ellis 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Let us review things here: except for one reversion of outright vandalism (an anon captioned the photo as "Please do not offer my god a peanut!") in May, Buckets hasn't even touched Gurmant Grewal's article since February. And even in the February edits, he toned other people's writing down (e.g. from "He violated the Elections Act" to "He may have violated the Elections Act"), and his edits are all quite carefully sourced and accurate to what happened. His editing behaviour really hasn't been at all consistent with any kind of obsessive vendetta or campaign; he frequently hasn't touched the article for months at a time, his edits represent only a small fraction of the article's total edit history, and there remains the fact that Grewal actually did something unethical. You simply can't get from Buckets' actual edit history to "obsessive campaign to discredit Gurmant Grewal" unless you start at the faulty assumption that Grewal was somehow entitled to get away with doing what he did. Buckets was not the author of Grewal's misfortune; Grewal was. And other than that, how exactly do you propose that Buckets prove that he doesn't have an agenda on Wikipedia, given that the inability to prove a negative is one of the very first things they teach in first year logic class? Bearcat 01:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

POV editing of Rachel Marsden

1) Former admin Homeontherange and admin Bearcat have engaged in POV edits of Rachel Marsden and Talk: Rachel Marsden as admins and have ignored Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Arthur Ellis 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Support RachelMarsden

False. Bearcat 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as false with regards to Bearcat; I have no opinion about this with regards to Homeontherange (who in any case was not named as a party and has therefore had no opportunity to defend himself). Bucketsofg✐ 01:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Homeontherange is not named as a party because he asked to be de-sysoped and deregistered from Wikipedia. Officially, he's not here.Arthur Ellis 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arthur Ellis has used socks to violate 3RR and otherwise disrupt

1) Arthur Ellis has used multiple socks in violation of WP:SOCK to violate 3RR, commit vandalism, and otherwise disrupt.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Bucketsofg✐ 03:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. Not an issue re: Marsden article violating policy re: living people. Arthur Ellis 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Biographies of living persons

1) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons specifically refers to the removal of "negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Opposed You may want to scroll down to this line in Wiki: Bios of Living People: "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

That line refers specifically to non-public figures. Marsden is both a voluntary and involuntary public figure. From Public figure, "A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of unwanted publicity. A person accused of a high profile crime may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established on this basis. A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest" Geedubber 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, in Ontario, this article is libelous. Marsden was not accused of a "high profile crime" or has she sought elected office or in any other way become a "public figure". The libel involved is in the totality of the article: stringing together unproven allegations to disparage the reputation of a person. The talk pages could easily be used to prove malice, as could Bearcat's "bullshitter" line, and the fact that the entry was crafted as Marsden was breaking through as a columnist in Toronto would certainly speak toward damages.Arthur Ellis 23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"high profile" refers to publicity recieved not the nature of the crime. As for the public figure thing, she is on TV and is a political columnist.... Geedubber 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Cowman109^Talk 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis has engaged in tendentious editing

1) User:Arthur Ellis has engaged in tendentious editing in the Rachel Marsden article and has not provided any evidence of specific contents violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Cowman109^Talk 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. And absurd. I have presented dozens of diffs on evidence page.Arthur Ellis 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Bucketsofg 03:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

1) The contents of this Arbitration Request result from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and no users should be blocked or banned, but instead User:Arthur Ellis is warned to not remove properly sourced material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternate solution that hopefully leaves people better off. Cowman109^Talk 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Arbitrators accepted my complaint that the Marsden article violates wiki policy. Why should I be warned? Positive material is deleted or is moved to footnotes by Bucketsofg and his cabal. Arthur Ellis 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find a single thing in the current article footnotes that I would describe as "positive." Can you give a specific example of something positive in the footnotes, that you think should be moved to the body of the article? Kla'quot 17:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I made that point because Bucketsofg removed part of Marsden's defence -- that she had not sent Donnelly photos of himself, but that Donnelly chose them from her portfolio -- from the main body of the article to the footnotes. Hopefully, you've read the diffs I posted on the evidence page that prove Bucketsofg and his cabal's tendentious editing.Arthur Ellis

I can't say I've read the Evidence page thoroughly, but I did a search for "footnote" and didn't find much. Do you have any other examples of positive, well-sourced information being removed? Sorry, the example you gave does not sound all that positive to me, and it would make a section that you think is already too long... longer. Perhaps you are right that it should be included, but it's a pretty borderline call when there's a whole other article that goes into the case in more detail. Kla'quot 06:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It was actually an important part of her defence. I do suggest you read the evidence page and check the diffs before you engage in discussion on this page. It looks like you have time. Things are moving fairly slowly here.Arthur Ellis 12:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators accepting to hear the matter is not at all the same thing as agreeing with your position before the arbitration even begins. Bearcat 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bucketsofg and Bearcat have refused to reply to the evidence of POV editing

1)Arthur Ellis' evidence shows clearly that the Rachel Marsden has been written and edited from the point of view that Marsden is a serial stalker, and that allegations against her are more important than other aspects of her life. Bucketsofg has simply misrepresented one aspect of my evidence (talking about his involvement in the Stubbs article, which I don't even mention in my evidence) and ignoring the rest. By not dealing with Arthur Ellis' evidence, Bearcat, Bucketsofg and others involved concede its accuracy.Arthur Ellis 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ProposedArthur Ellis 15:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. The members of ArbComm are perfectly able to read through AE's diffs. If they have any questions about them, they can raise them. The Stubbs reference is in the original request for arbitration: "The rest of the article is a collection of allegations and unproven facts, strung topgether to make Marsden appear to be an habitual liar and a criminal. Bucketsofg has expanded on this by setting up spin-off articles on Liam Donnelly and John Stubbs, among others, as part of a campaign to smear Marsden." Bucketsofg 23:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Note how Bucketsofg reaches back to pick Stubbs from the arbitration request and ignores Marsden-Donnelly harassment case and so much more from my evidence. He picks what can be defended, then claims it's not worth his time to defend the rest. Do not fall for this slieght of hand. This is typical of his way of ignoring incontrovertable evidence of biased and obsessive editing. See Stubbs, Rachel Marsden, Marsden-Donnelly harassment case and Gurmant Grewal as symptoms of Bucketsofg's pathology. As Marsden says, look at his name.Arthur Ellis 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is John Stubbs (educator), for those interested. Bucketsofg 13:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

At least in my case, you haven't shown any evidence of POV editing; you've simply made a lot of ad hominem "it's true because I say so" allegations. I can't and won't presume to speak for Buckets; he's quite capable of speaking for himself on this matter. Bearcat 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There are enough diffs on the evidence page to make my point many times over. This is hardly ad hominem.Arthur Ellis 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what's really interesting about this: you're so convinced of the utter rightness of your position that you view any divergence from your version whatosever, even a spelling correction, as POV. Again, it's up to Buckets to speak for himself; where I'm concerned, you provided a grand total of three diffs: the first is a reference formatting issue; the second is a legitimate disagreement over whether BLP is being violated or not, which you falsely characterize as my simply ignoring the choirs of angels singing praises to your correctness; the third is just a repeat of the second in different words. You have failed to prove that any of this constitutes biased editing on my part. And you're very much going for the ad hominem — other than the really weak case presented by those three diffs, all you've got is unsupported assertions that I'm biased, hysterically angry and attack Rachel on the talk page, all comfortably parked in "it's true because I say it is" territory. Since this debate began you've simply clung to your position, refused to acknowledge that anybody could possibly have a legitimate difference of opinion, and mischaracterized even the slightest divergence from your view as other editors deliberately ignoring a policy that, as has been pointed out more than once, doesn't even support your position. Does that make me biased? Er, no, it doesn't. Bearcat 01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Buckets of Data

1) Buckets of Data is a blog maintained on WordPress.com by Bucketsofg which contains extensive entries consisting of press reports concerning Rachel Marsden extending from 1997 to the present. A number of articles dating from 1991 concerning Gurmant Grewal are also posted. The entries, being unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, are copyright violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Extensively revised, based on the realization that links to the site can be interpreted as contributory infringement, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works Fred Bauder 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'm honestly curious to know if these articles were posted on those dates, and why they were posted. (Follow-up: I looked at the site, and it gave me the creeps. Bucketsofg has been storing articles on Marsden for nine years.) Arthur Ellis 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arthur Ellis banned from articles which relate to Canadian politics

2) In an earlier arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis, closed September 18, 2006, Arthur Ellis was banned from editing articles which relate to Canadian politics, with the exception of the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Should he violate the ban, any administrator is authorized to ban him for an appropriate period of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arthur Ellis has violated a ban on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics

3) In violation of the ban on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics imposed in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis, Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has extensively edited Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and filed this arbitration request.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Do tell me, is Rachel Marsden a politician or a blogger? Since she doesn't have a blog, and turned down the one opportunity she's had to run for office, I'd say I was hardly out of line for believing she was neither. Are newspaper columnists bloggers or are they, by an incredible stretch of logic, politicians? And if she really is some kind of stalker/psycho, does that make her a politician, or does that make her a blogger? This is very novel. And are people to be punished for filing arbitration requests? Arthur Ellis 14:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"which relate to" is the key phrase here. Geedubber 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm uncomfortable with making filing an arbitration request an actionable offense. If the request was meritless, it could have been denied and sanctions imposed on Ellis for filing it at that time. Thatcher131 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ellis has also edited Mark Bourre, and IP's associated with Ellis have vandalized Warren Kinsella related topics, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I have never touched the Kinsella page or anything connected with it since the arbcom decision.

Second, punishing someone for bringing a good-faith action is an anathema in any non-fascist jurisdiction. Arthur Ellis 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bearcat and Bucketsofg should lose their Wikipedia administrator status for at least one year.

failing that, they should be subject to a recall vote.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Arthur Ellis 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done nothing to deserve this, I must point out. And neither has Buckets. Bearcat 22:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Um, yes. You have. RachelMarsden

Um, no, I haven't. Bearcat 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. De-syssoping would imply that Bearcat and I have misused the admin tools; neither is the case, nor has any evidence of that been suggested. Bucketsofg✐ 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bearcat, Bucketsofg, Geedubber and Ian King should be barred from editing the Rachel Marsden article and talk: Rachel Marsden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Arthur Ellis 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Any such ban should also include Arthur Ellis, his sock puppets, and the anon IP numbers that have occasionally asserted themselves to be either Rachel herself or Rachel's sister. To be perfectly frank, I'd be more than happy to never have to deal with this saga again — but any ban that included me or Buckets, but not Ellis and his sock drawer, would be rather blatantly missing the point. Bearcat 22:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why ban me? I've fought like hell to make this thing NPOV and encyclopedic, to the point where I had to scratch and claw my way to a Request for Arbitration after my attempts to have mediation were dismissed out of hand.Arthur Ellis 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You've continually contravened Wikipedia policy (3RR, sockpuppet, etc.) in order to enforce your version of what constitutes an NPOV and encyclopedic entry, in defiance of the fact that a significant number of people disagree with your reading of those concepts on Wikipedia. In fact, a dozen or more neutral parties have reviewed the article over the past several months, and not a single person who wasn't you or Rachel herself has yet come down in favour of your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Bearcat 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. Marsden is neither a politician, nor is she a blogger.Arthur Ellis 19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly where does anybody say or imply that she is a politician or a blogger? Bearcat 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ellis is already banned from editing the Rachel Marsden entry. Geedubber 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you present some diffs on the evidence page for why I should be banned. Geedubber 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please present some evidence that I've edited the article in a malicious or destructive manner, introduced false information, or anything else beyond simply reverting your blanking of verifiable, relevant information.Ianking 18:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Rachel Marsden entry whould be re-written by somone appointed by the arbitrators and who comes to the task with no bias. Preferably, this person should not be a Canadian. Failing that, Arthur Ellis' version of Oct. 10 should be used as a guide.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Arthur Ellis 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is a very fair middle-road remedy. I can't possibly imagine any unbiased, fair-minded individual disagreeing with it. RachelMarsden

Show some evidence that the editors you've named actually do have some sort of bias or vendetta against Marsden, and that their editing reflects this bias. Simply saying that it's so isn't enough. Ianking 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposed as unworkable and contrary to wikipedia's nature, where anyone can edit any article and no one can be assigned to any article. Bucketsofg✐ 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. When a cabal like this is established, the freedom of others to edit is curtailed. Arthur Ellis 17:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis exercised his "freedom to edit" pretty thoroughly on July 17[5]; he seemed to be satisfied with the state of the article at the time (here) and later claimed to have written current version of Rachel Marsden. It has been mass blankings that have gotten reverted, and these as often by passing recent-change patrollers as by those Ellis is now accusing. Bucketsofg 16:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The version that I wrote was under constant attack at the time of writing and has been steadily and incrementally turned into the attack piece that it is today, mostly by Bucketsofg, but with help from his anti-Marsden, anti-Grewal, anti-conservative cabal.Arthur Ellis 17:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true. (1) There was no attack. Beginning here, Ellis made 20 edits unchallenged. Bearcat reverted him here "because of a problem in the reference formatting; references are appearing as an indistinct and unformatted block of text rather than a reference list," a problem Ellis immediately fixed [6] and then continued to edit unchallenged. User:Wiederaufbau reverted here, but was immediately re-reverted. At that point I made a few edits and welcomed Ellis' contribution on the talk page, suggesting ways in which the article might be improved. He thanked me for my encouragement, but declined further involvement in the article: "I'll leave all this in your hands." (2) Nor has there incremental change since. At the point he "left it in my hands" the article looked like this. No significant change has been made since then: here's a diff between that point and now [7], a fact that he recognized when he claimed responsibility for the current version of the article[8]

I got as many changes to the article as I could, given the circumstances. This is how it looked when I started: [9]. I had hoped a new admin would act responsibly and continue to bring the article up to standards. At that point in my Wikipedia career, I simply anted to fix glitches I found in Wiki articles when I used the encyclopedia. I didn't come here to get into edit wars. The Marsden entry has, of course, been edited more than 100 times since the Bucketsofg cabal let me near it.Arthur Ellis 12:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

.

Comment by others:

The talk page and archived talk pages of Rachel Marsden should be edited to remove libel and POV discussions about her.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Arthur Ellis 19:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm genuinely at a loss with regards to what comments on the talk page Arthur Ellis views as libellous or POV. Bearcat 18:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I approve of the principle: obviously any libelous statement should be removed, whether in the talk page or in the entry proper; POV should be edited towards NPOV. It would be helpful to know which specific sentences in the present article AE thinks need changing. Bucketsofg✐ 01:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Check my evidence for the dozens of diffs. Arthur Ellis 11:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. If it has to be spelled out for you, then maybe you shouldn't have the responsibility of being an admin? Just a thought. RachelMarsden

There is no libel against you on the talk page. Bearcat 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Maybe that's why you should lose admin status Arthur Ellis 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's why you should actually provide some specific examples showing which comments on the talk page could possibly be seen as libel under the current state of libel legislation. Bearcat 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is libelous under the laws of Ontario, where Marsden and Bearcat live.Arthur Ellis 13:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, Wikipedia is bound by the laws of the United States, not of Canada. For another, you're still going for the "it's true because I say so" technique, and not providing any concrete evidence of how it can be viewed that way. Bearcat 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound only by the laws of the US.. A person can bring an action in Canada for posts made in Canada about Canadians. The Ontario Court of Appeal made that decision last year in the Washington Post [10] case. This entry is libelous in Ontario. Even the title of the Western Standard article is libelous. In Ontario, people who re-publish libels or construct libel from fragments of articles are guilty of libel. But if she did sue in the U.S., she might clean up [11]. And the fact that Wikipedia has been warned, over and over again, about this entry by Ceraurus, who used to teach libel law, would probably add to any damages. Arthur Ellis 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons should trump the three revert rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Arthur Ellis 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP does trump 3RR when BLP is being contravened; the article as written is not a BLP contravention and thus does not qualify for any exemption from standard policy. Through this entire dispute, Bourrie/Ellis has simply continued to assert that his edits were in keeping with BLP, no matter how many times people have told him that he was misreading (or deliberately distorting?) that policy. In this, he's resembled nothing so much as a five-year-old boy babbling "la-la-la-la, I can't hear you!" while sticking his fingers in his ears. Bearcat 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Insults do not help your case. None of the biased admins has ever addressed rating of this article as B (substandard), nor would they even listen to Jimbo Wales. All of the softening of this dreadful article were done by Samaritan, Ceraurus and me. I will be posting links soon (when I have a couple of hours to waste) to choice versions that were protected by Bearcat, Bucketsofg and Homeontherange.Arthur Ellis 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere on Wikipedia has anybody posted any indication that the article was given a B rating because it contained inappropriate allegations; currently, articles rated as B-class include Michelangelo, Matthew Shepard, Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, Luxembourg, Homer Simpson and York, Pennsylvania, among others. There are a lot of factors that go into a quality rating, including length and depth, and the article's rating could equally be improved by expanding the allegations rather than eliminating them. Nor has Jimbo said anything about the current version of the article; he criticized the version that existed six months ago, and his criticism did not include any suggestion that all mention of the allegations had to be removed; the only issue he cited in his comments on the article was a question about how her French language skills were characterized. You're misrepresenting what he actually said; he has never spoken either in favour of or against discussing the allegations under dispute here. And I have at no time protected any version of the article that was inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. (Oh, and incidentally, Samaritan, whom I know personally, is an NDP member, so I'm most curious to know how NDP membership automatically disqualifies me from editing this article but not him.) Bearcat 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You very much misrepresent Jimbo Wales' position. His concerns are in my evidence, with "diffs". The French fluency was a "for instance", and he notes the article is overwhelmingly negative.

It would have been useful for the people who gave it a B rating to explain why they did so. I do, however, suspect they did not think there were not enough allegations in it.Arthur Ellis 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I very much don't misrepresent Jimbo's stated position; if he objected to the presence of the harassment allegations in the article, he certainly never said that. You're reading things into his comments that simply aren't there. And as for the article rating, you might be interested to know that cutting length and detail leads to rating reductions (most likely to stub class), not rating increases. Bearcat 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what Jimbo Wales said:

== Overall tone ==

Speaking now as an ordinary editor, I feel that the tone of this article is excessively negative to the point of editorializing inappropriately.

As an example, we say "with a minor in French, a language in which she claims fluency.". Ok, if she did minor in French in college, is there any particular reason why we should doubt her claimed fluency? What is the purpose of the clause? Has any published source ever doubt it? (If so, then let's have a citation.) Just because she is controversial, this is not a justification for random insinuations.

There are many other details of this nature in this article and related articles.--Jimbo Wales 12:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis 22:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, he did not cite the harassment allegations as an issue; you're inserting your own agenda into his statement. And what part of his call for published sources eludes you? Bearcat 19:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Using your own phraseology, just which part of "Speaking now as an ordinary editor, I feel that the tone of this article is excessively negative to the point of editorializing inappropriately" don't you get? Arthur Ellis 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Editorializing inappropriately" is resolved by USING PUBLISHED SOURCES. "Editorializing inappropriately" does not mean "negative material has to go no matter how properly sourced it is", it means "don't characterize her French fluency as a claim unless published media sources have called attention to concerns about it". Are you missing or ignoring the "Has any published source ever doubt it? (If so, then let's have a citation.)" part of his comment?Bearcat 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Socks should be tagged, blocked, and reported

1) If CheckUser finds any new socks, they should be tagged as socks, blocked per policy, and logged at both Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Bucketsofg✐ 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant. What does that have to do with hidden agenda edits you've made to Marsden, Grewal, etc.? Arthur Ellis 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The arbitrators are entitled to rule on and remedy any rule breach or tendentious behaviour that occurs within this dispute, whether it was contained in your original RFA request or not. As you're so fond of saying in other sections, it's for them to decide whether this is relevant, not you. Bearcat 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arthur Ellis banned for one year

1) User:Arthur Ellis is banned for one year for engaging in tendentious editing, abusive use of sockpuppets, violating arbcom remedies, and general disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too long, but a block is appropriate for blatant violation of the ban imposed in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics. Fred Bauder 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose How convenient for you to ban people who simply offer a different point of view. This is precisely why this particular article is now in arbitration. RachelMarsden

Arthur Ellis was not banned for simply "offering a different point of view, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella. Your article is in arbitration because it fails to meet Wikipedia standards in a variety of ways. Fred Bauder 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a suggestion that I should be punished for filing an arbcom request. If arbcom thought the request was frivolous, it should have turned down the request. Arthur Ellis 11:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I voted to accept the arbitration to address the recurrent policy violations which have occurred with respect to Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You violated the ban on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics both by editing the article and by making the request for arbitration. I suspect you did not understand the ban, but you have violated it in a gross way. However, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. It has been a problem from the beginning. Perhaps this round will result in some progress. Fred Bauder 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Cowman109^Talk 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think he's exhausted the community's patience. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis banned from editing Rachel Marsden

1)Arthur Ellis is banned from editing the Rachel Marsden article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis imposed a ban on editing any article which relates to Canadian politics. Fred Bauder 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose How utterly convenient that would be for you. This proposition is precisely why this article has come to arbitration -- because of the tendency of some people on here (admins) to simply ban anyone who disagrees or alters their libelous statements in this article. RachelMarsden

Comment. Whatever the Arbitrators decide to do in this regard, they should make every effort to make their ruling as clear as possible. The ambiguity about whether the Marsden was covered by the Kinsella-arbcomm decision made possible the current case. (It has probably not escaped others' notice that Ceraurus/Ellis has a taste for WP:POINT and WP:LAWYER.) Bucketsofg 14:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's very funny, coming from someone who relies completely on Wikipedia rules and process to avoid discussing biased edits.Arthur Ellis 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Cowman109^Talk 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Though, I'm not sure if this was already specified in the earlier arbcom ruling. Cowman109^Talk 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

While I respect that your article may be overly one sided and that should be fixed, Arthur Ellis has removed sourced information which is specifically against policy. This quickly inflames conflicts and promotes edit wars as WP:BLP is being misinterpreted, while it would be much more productive to go through dispute resolution or getting a third opinion on the matter instead of using sockpuppets to evade his block. Cowman109^Talk 02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I offered to go through dispute resolution, but Bucketsofg and Bearcat rejected mediation out of hand.Arthur Ellis 11:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Because you were using sockpuppets and blanking verifiable, sourced information. There's no mediation to be had if one side of the dispute is completely disregarding the rules. Bearcat 09:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the reason you gave. You said the article was just fine as it is.Arthur Ellis 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In what language is that oversimplification of my words not adequately covered by the phrase "and [you were] blanking verifiable, sourced information"? Bearcat 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How can someone this emotional, POV and sarcastic be an admin on Wikipedia? How can anyone negotiate with someone with so much hostility and anger?Arthur Ellis 19:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth do you see hostility, anger, POV, sarcasm or emotionality in the comment you're replying to? Bearcat 19:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Puppet prevention

1) Since abusive sock-puppetry done through multiple, changing anon-IPs has been so disruptive to this and related pages, a protocol be implemented for this and related articles which allows a "speedy" request for semi-protection.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Bucketsofg✐ 14:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rationale. Banning has been proposed above, but any ban is unlikely to be effective in this case given Ceraurus/Ellis' track-record of resetting their IP and continuing to post, even when banned or blocked. A range-block is unthinkable; permanent semi-protection is inconsistent with WP:SEMI, which explicitly eschews prevention. But access to WP:SEMI might speedied. For example, a form such as the following could be added to the affected articles:

File:128px-openPadlockpng.png

In keeping with a recent Arbitration ruling, users may request that this article be semiprotected, or have its editing restricted to registered users, if multiple anonymous IPs or newly registered accounts vandalise or disrupt it in ways consistent with past abuse. Requests for semiprotection should be made at WP:ANI and refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden.

This would make it possible to shut-down an IP-swarm after 4 or 5 reverts rather than 20.Bucketsofg✐ 14:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant. Probably a good idea, but not relevant to this arbitration.Arthur Ellis 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Puppet prevention 2

1) Given the scale and scope of puppetry, together with the incorrigibility of the puppeteer (see e.g., [12]), ArbComm should refer the matter to ISP reporting with the instruction that a case be opened, that a catalogue of recent abuses be collected (beginning perhaps with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#The_Magma_IPs_.28nos._1-43.29), and, if there is further disruption, that contact be made with the sock-puppeteer's ISP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Bucketsofg✐ 15:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant. Probably a good idea re: all abusive IPs, but, again, this is a smokescrean. This has nothing to do with the issue of the biased writing and editing of Rachel Marsden and ways to prevent similar agenda edits of bios of living persons by people like Bucketsofg who join Wikipedia with a political agenda and rise -- perhaps temporarily -- to admin.Arthur Ellis 13:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Links to violations of copyright to be removed

1) All links to copies of press reports on the blog Buckets of Data or any other site which contains material which violates copyright shall be removed. If the press report is used as a source for information in the article, the original source shall be cited without mention of the intermediate source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A profoundly unsatisfactory compromise Fred Bauder 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is an issue about copyright, the taking of material from, in this case, lexis-nexis, and storing it in a blog or database. It is expressly forbidden by the lexis-nexis user agreement, for very obvious reasons. Again, I have warned about this many times, to no avail.Arthur Ellis 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Links to violations of copyright to be removed

1.1) All information obtained from unauthorized copies of press reports as well as links to copies of press reports on the blog Buckets of Data or any other site which contains material which violates copyright shall be removed. Press reports may be used as a source for information in the article only if the original source is consulted and properly cited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps too strict Fred Bauder 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would think the electronic version of the article would be the "original source". Perhaps directions on how to get to it "accessible through lexis-nexis', "accessible through the Daily Bugle online archives", would be enough for dealing with the copyright issue. In this case, copyright abuse is just part of a pattern of misbehavior orchestrated to produce an article that, here in Canada, is libelous. And because Canadian courts would have jurisdiction -- Marsden is a long-term resident in Ontario, the meanest libel jurisdiction in North America, as are Bearcat, Bucketsofg and others -- Ontario law counts.Arthur Ellis 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Those links should be thought of solely as 'convenience links' not the actual citations. From Wikipedia:Citing sources, "If the link was merely a "convenience link" to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, it is acceptable to drop the link but keep the citation." Stipulating that information included in those links should be removed from the page is contrary to current guidelines. Geedubber 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

When Buckets or any editor retrieves a LexisNexis story, that is an authorized use, and it may be referenced on wikipedia even if an online copy is not readily available. The fact that providing a copy for the possible convenience of readers may violate copyright and/or a TOS agreement does not invalidate the original source. There is no particular reason I should have to go to Los Angeles to visually inspect a 1990 copy of the LA Times in order to cite it, if I have retrieved it from a reliable archival source such as LexisNexis.Thatcher131 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, another Wikipedia admin wrong yet again. The lexis-nexis user agreement specifically bars people from stealing lexis-nexis data and storing it. Retrieving it for your own use is proper, but copying, storing , and sharing it with others via Wikipedia is not. The newspapers license lexis-nexis to sell access to archives. Lexis nexis stores these electronic arcchives and makes money by letting users see the material. They are not supposed to copy it and store it elsewhere. Bucketsofg is a thief and Wikipedia is a trafficker in stolen goods. But, hey, those are otehr peoples' rules.

Jimbo, don't go crying to the press when your foundation gets its ass sued off for libel, breach of copyright and theft.Arthur Ellis 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, what did I get wrong exactly? The only thing I said was "may violate copyright or TOS" and I said "may" rather than "does" because this is a broadly applicable principle. The fact that Buckets violated LN's TOS by storing a copy on his blog does not mean that retrieving it and using it as a source on Wikipedia was wrong, either legally or according to the reliable source and citation policies. And the same is true for anyone who cites any source retrieved from a restricted database. You're not going to get Buckets deadminned for what he posts on his blog, and all that has to be done on Wikipedia is to delink and properly attribute the citations. Thatcher131 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Links to violations of copyright to be removed

1.2) Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, articles should not link directly to copies of press reports archived on the blog Buckets of Data or any other site in violation of copyright. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Intermediate sources: State where you got it, citations should state the original source (i.e. the LA Times) and the intermediate source (i.e. "as retrieved from LexisNexis on October 16, 2006").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 15:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis blocked for 6 months

1) Having violated the ban imposed by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics, Arthur Ellis is blocked for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That's ridiculous. I'm supposed to be banned for editing an entry about a newspaper columnist, because I've already been told not to edit material about Canadian politics and bloggers? And I come to Wikipedia and tell you that this article is, under Ontario law, which has jurisdiction, libelous, and your answer is a six-month ban from Wikipedia? Wow. A spectacular leap of logic. 9.9 from the Crazy Russian judge! Arthur Ellis 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bucketsofg limited to one user name

Bucketsofg, having at least one sock, Bogman2 (see evidence), should be limited to one use name.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Arthur Ellis 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose It is probably just an account he uses when editing from a public computer. As long as he doesn't use it to cause disruption, it is kosher. Geedubber 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is just no way I can see this as a neutral biography. I don't doubt that the editors who wrote the article followed our rules to the letter. I do think linking to one's own archive of material is unwise, but it is not needed. A citation to a newspaper is fine by itself without any live link. My concern is not that there is unsourced negative material, but that there is almost only negative material. I have no idea what remedy to propose. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this case proves that you can use Wiki rules as shields to allow you to push your own domestic political agenda on Wikipedia, and to drive newcomers unfamiliar with the rules to sockpuppetry and vandalism in frustration. Then, in defence of your agenda-pushing, all you need do is steer the discussion back to Wiki rules, without ever dealing with the fact that there is a Wikipedia entry that (a) plays into criticism of Wikipedia as a forum for anonymous character assassins and (b) seriously harms the Internet reputation of an individual, who now finds herself, effectively, as a libel victim of a deep-pocket multi-national organization. That's why I have fought so hard on this. It is so damn unfair. Arthur Ellis 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what Jimbo Wales said:

== Overall tone ==

Speaking now as an ordinary editor, I feel that the tone of this article is excessively negative to the point of editorializing inappropriately.

As an example, we say "with a minor in French, a language in which she claims fluency.". Ok, if she did minor in French in college, is there any particular reason why we should doubt her claimed fluency? What is the purpose of the clause? Has any published source ever doubt it? (If so, then let's have a citation.) Just because she is controversial, this is not a justification for random insinuations.

There are many other details of this nature in this article and related articles.--Jimbo Wales 12:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis 22:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that you did the very thing to Warren Kinsella and Pierre Bourque that you claim is being done to Rachel here. You're trying to protect a friend from inconvenient parts of her past that make for bad PR by misrepresenting the facts as libel, while simultaneously using Wikipedia to discredit your enemies by misrepresenting libel as fact. Your pretense to the moral high ground is at best flimsy and at worst baseless. Bearcat 19:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

People are free at any time to add all the positive material they want, as long as it's properly sourced. What you can't do is remove properly sourced material that's already in the article just because it's not nice. Bearcat 19:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the truth on Kinsella and Bourque. In fact, you've reverted attempted changes to those entries, saying they were properly sources. Plus you added considerable material to Bourque that, I'm sure, Bourque doesn't like.Arthur Ellis 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't touched Kinsella's article at all, and I added many of the sources and external links that exist on Bourque, where you'll notice I didn't bury your allegations; I expanded on your one-line statement with actual references to what the sources said. You didn't write truth in either article; you wrote tendentious, biased and libellous interpretations and/or oversimplifications of truth which other editors have had to put substantial work into cleaning up. And as for that last bit, I'm curious to know how you think that contradicts my position here — in both cases, what the subject personally likes or doesn't like is not permitted to influence or bar the inclusion of verified negative material. Bearcat 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my "one line statement" is a chopping-down of the same allegations you cite, coming from the same place: the Ryerson review of Journalism article". No one has touched my version of Kinsella, which, weeks after Bucketsofbias hijacked the Warren Kinsella arbitration with his sockpuppetry red herring, is still the one I wrote. When an anonymous IP (there they go again...) tried to turn it into a puff piece, it was reverted to my version, because mine is properly sourced and is true. Now guess which Toronto-based self-styled under-employed freelance writer did the reverting? Guess. Not Marsden. She's not under-employed.Arthur Ellis 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bourque, let me try this again: you added a one-line blanket assertion, while simultaneously removing the unquestionably true fact that he ran as a candidate in several elections in the 1990s. I reviewed the sources, and cleaned up your addition to make it both more detailed and more carefully in accordance with what the sources actually said, and therefore less libel-prone. Having been uninvolved in the Kinsella dispute and not having read that article in months, I'd have to review it before I can comment further. And for the record, sockpuppetry in an edit dispute is not a red herring. Bearcat 19:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is if it's the only thing addressed, if everything is hijacked to that one issue, especially when the "evidence" is fabricated or is just a collection of every onl IP that fits.Arthur Ellis 21:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)