From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Request for Checkuser 1.2 Request that these pages be semi-protected 1.3 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. 1.4 Motion that Fred Bauder Recuse or be removed 1.5 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 3.1 Question to Bucketsofg 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.1.1 Template 4.1.2 Biographies of living persons 4.1.3 Article is an attempt to harm Marsden's career 4.1.4 WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article 4.1.5 Verifiability, not truth 4.1.6 Not all published sources are good sources 4.1.7 Check your politics at the door 4.1.8 Allegations of minor offences are not, in themselves, items of notability 4.1.9 CBC Documentary 4.1.10 Abusive sock-puppetry 4.1.11 Respect for ArbComm Rulings 4.1.12 Hidden agendas and conflicts of interest 4.1.13 Hidden agendas and conflicts of interest 4.1.14 Bios of living people 4.1.15 Outing 4.1.16 Use of reliable sources 4.1.17 Good faith acceptance of references 4.1.18 Neutral Point of View 4.1.19 Preserve information when correcting balance problems 4.1.20 The scope of ArbComm's interest 4.1.21 Assume good faith 4.1.22 Appropriate use of copyrighted material 4.1.23 Linking to copyrighted works 4.1.24 Better nothing than a hatchet job 4.1.25 Attack pages are subject to speedy deletion 4.1.26 No original research 1 4.1.27 No original research 2: no new syntheses 4.1.28 No Original Research 3: "Cherry-picking" might result in a new synthesis 4.1.29 No original research 4: selective exclusion 4.1.30 Template 4.1.31 Template 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 Template 4.2.2 Marsden article is in need of serious re-write 4.2.3 Prior case 4.2.4 Arthur Ellis violated ArbComm Remedies 4.2.5 Bucketsofg bias 4.2.6 Bucketsofg hidden agenda 4.2.7 POV editing of Rachel Marsden 4.2.8 Arthur Ellis has used socks to violate 3RR and otherwise disrupt 4.2.9 Biographies of living persons 4.2.10 Arthur Ellis has engaged in tendentious editing 4.2.11 Misunderstanding 4.2.12 Bucketsofg and Bearcat have refused to reply to the evidence of POV editing 4.2.13 Buckets of Data 4.2.14 Arthur Ellis banned from articles which relate to Canadian politics 4.2.15 Arthur Ellis has violated a ban on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics 4.2.16 RachelMarsden 4.2.17 Rachel Marsden 4.2.18 Marsden-Donnelly harassment case 4.2.19 Bearcat 4.2.20 Arthur Ellis 4.2.21 The negatively biased version 4.2.22 Arthur Ellis' edits to Rachel Marsden have not been unacceptably disruptive 4.2.23 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 Template 4.3.2 Bearcat and Bucketsofg should lose their Wikipedia administrator status for at least one year. 4.3.3 Bearcat, Bucketsofg, Geedubber and Ian King should be barred from editing the Rachel Marsden article and talk: Rachel Marsden. 4.3.4 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. 4.3.5 The talk page and archived talk pages of Rachel Marsden should be edited to remove libel and POV discussions about her. 4.3.6 Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons should trump the three revert rule. 4.3.7 Socks should be tagged, blocked, and reported 4.3.8 Arthur Ellis banned for one year 4.3.9 Arthur Ellis banned from editing Rachel Marsden 4.3.10 Puppet prevention 4.3.11 Puppet prevention 2 4.3.12 Links to violations of copyright to be removed 4.3.13 Links to violations of copyright to be removed 4.3.14 Links to violations of copyright to be removed 4.3.15 Links to violations of copyright to be removed 4.3.16 Arthur Ellis blocked for 1 day 4.3.17 Bucketsofg limited to one user name 4.3.18 Arthur Ellis statement 4.3.19 Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden 4.3.20 Bearcat and Bucketsofg 4.3.21 Arthur Ellis placed on probation 4.3.22 Bucketsofg defiant, unrepentent 4.3.23 Template 4.3.24 Template 4.3.25 Template 4.3.26 Template 4.3.27 Template 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Template 4.4.2 Template 4.4.3 Template 4.4.4 Template 4.4.5 Template 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 Template 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.5.6 Template 4.5.7 Template 4.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] 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:

We sometimes do checkuser with troublesome editors in order to maintain a record; however, my impression is that the principals here have rather transparent behavior and are readily identifiable without checkuser. Fred Bauder 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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:

I would rather maximize the opportunity to comment. It can get crazy, but this is not an encyclopedia article. Fred Bauder 14:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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:

A balanced article would continue to reference past incidents. What would be different is that it would also contain substantial positive information and exclude the plethora of poorly sourced negative information now in the article.

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)

I can attest that in Vancouver, Rachel Marsden is a household word. Kla'quot 05:52, 18 October 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)

[edit] Motion that Fred Bauder Recuse or be removed

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have little interest in Canadian politics or in Rachel Marsden. Fred Bauder 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Bauder has made it clear here, and at the Warren Kinsella arbcom, that he is hopelessly and irretrievably biased, and that he has adopted the personality-based causes of Bucketsofg and the cabal involved with Rachel Marsden and Warren Kinsella. He now advocates on their behalf. Arthur Ellis 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw, with sincere apologies. I should have let you finish your comments.Arthur Ellis 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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:

Accept, although I will probably expand it considerably Fred Bauder 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] Article is an attempt to harm Marsden's career

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Malice is possible, and I will make a finding to that effect if proof is there, but post hoc, ergo prompter hoc (It happened right after, therefor because of) is a notorious fallacy.

Comment by parties:

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

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

Still, they claim her notoriety comes from a incident in 1996. So why wait until ten years later, when she lands a good job that pises off Toronto's leftist freelancers, to write the article? Arthur Ellis 17:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are more than a few perfectly notable people on Wikipedia who didn't get written up until somebody happened to notice that they didn't have an article yet (a discovery which often doesn't take place until a person gets back into the news.) It fails both Occam's razor and WP:AGF to assume malice where the more likely explanation is "things get done on Wikipedia when they get done, period." Bearcat 00:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

3) 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:

Correct; the principles which underlie Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons apply to all mentions of living persons in Wikipedia, and in a less focused way to information regarding any person or enterprise. Fred Bauder 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] Verifiability, not truth

4) 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:

"Verifiability, not truth", while policy, is a rather unfortunate formulation. From the comments below, it seems to strike a nerve, but at this point I'm not sure exactly what information and sources are being referred to. As applied to controversial information concerning Rachel Marsden only well sourced information may be included in our article. That means that those, including Rachel Marsden or other principals, who are personally acquainted with the facts may not include that information on their own say so. To be included in a Wikipedia article information must have been published in a reliable source. Fred Bauder 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Fred, just to be clear "Verifiability, not truth" was just the title of the proposed principle. I wasn't trying to reduce the policy down to 3 words. Geedubber 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" sounds like something Joseph Stalin would have said. Arthur Ellis 18:07, 17 October 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)

The point of the matter is that people often dispute what's "true". Some people think the harassment allegations in this dispute are true; others think the truth of the matter is that there's a cabal of people determined to discredit Rachel. And yet, either one would be a highly POV approach to take in an article, and neither one can be verifiably proven as truth. What can be verified, however, is that the harassment allegations were made, what each side's position was in the disputes, and how the allegations were dealt with. Some people think the truth is that God exists; others think the truth is that God doesn't exist. And yet, either one would be a highly POV approach to take, and neither one can be verifiably proven as truth. What can be verified, however, is that regardless of his existence or lack thereof, God is notable as a cultural concept whose existence or non-existence is one of the core questions in virtually any spiritual or religious belief system. And on, and so forth. That's what "verifiability, not truth" means: source the facts, and don't extrapolate them to your own interpretation of what the truth is. Bearcat 00:33, 22 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)

[edit] Not all published sources are good sources

5) 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:

A biased source is not a reliable source. It is a matter of editorial judgement. Fred Bauder 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

This is tyical of the attitude Bearcat has towards Marsden and more proof of his POV. Arthur Ellis 23:00, 21 October 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:

[edit] Check your politics at the door

6) 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:

What is required of an editor is awareness of their biases combined with a commitment to Wikipedia's core principles of neutral point of view and verifiability of information. Obviously, most of us work on articles that we have an interest in. It is presumed that most of the involved parties here have a least a passing interest in Canadian politics. Most likely a passionate interest. That is to be expected. Only in extreme cases would such intense interest lead to a ban on editing. This has happened in the case of Arthur Ellis, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella Fred Bauder 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

There is a difference between being "interested" and setting up blogs about politicians, adopting an attack name of them as your Internet persono, going on Wikipedia to write their bios, setting up similar attack bios on everyone associated with them.

Again, Fred, you've adopted a cause. You should recuse.Arthur Ellis 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] Allegations of minor offences are not, in themselves, items of notability

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

In this case, the controversy at Simon Fraser University, was notable in itself, and having been a principal in that affair, the subsequent incidents Rachel Marsden was involved in are notable. However, a number of the specific allegations mentioned in press reports lack a reliable source as they were not independently investigated by the newspapers involved. Which have a sufficiently reliable source is a matter of editorial judgement. Publication in a newspaper or a magazine does not render allegations fact, nor does it support inclusion in Wikipedia in the absence of a reliable source which addresses the fact alleged itself. The notion that unproven allegations may be liberally included in a Wikipedia article is a violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Fred Bauder 18:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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:

I looked at it. The interviewer obviously had a point to make and skillfully made it. It is strongly biased but I think it is a righteous external link as well as evidence of her close association with O'Reilly. I doubt its usefulness regarding anything else due to its strong bias and gotcha tactics. Fred Bauder 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

" 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." Good point, but at the present time there is little if any published commentary by a reliable source on your work. Fred Bauder 15:43, 19 October 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".

Good point, but the program was obviously on a witch hunt.

That is by no means "obvious"; it's a POV interpretation of the fact that she said what she said. Bearcat 01:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 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.

You are being discourteous. Fred Bauder 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Bearcat 01:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 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)

The interviewer created that impression, I wouldn't consider the program a reliable source on that point. Fred Bauder 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Laid is played, as they say in poker and canasta. Bearcat 01:31, 24 October 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. I think the arbitrators should avoid making a clear ruling about inclusion or non-inclusion of some demonstratable fact. The Sticks-and-Stones documentary happened, and whether reflects bad on her or on the CBC is in-the-eye-of-the-beholder. But there is surely a context in which this can be included. I've tried something along this line in the article just now. Marsden got invited onto the show because of her radio program, which AE has added to the article. If we introduce this media section with the radio program as a segue to the CBC program, the documentary becomes a sign that she was becoming notable. Bucketsofg 00:04, 20 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)

[edit] 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:

So far I find no evidence of harm resulting from use of more than one account. Fred Bauder 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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:

Yes, Yes! However it has become very obvious that Arthus Ellis completely misunderstood the scope of the remedy in the prior case. That doesn't mean we ought to change it, but coming down hard on him when he did not realize he was out of bounds would be wrong. Fred Bauder 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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:

Accepted, Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for political propaganda. Fred Bauder 15:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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:

We do that in appropriate cases. So far, I have found no evidence which would support such a remedy. Fred Bauder 15:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Time to read the evidence for a change, Fred. Arthur Ellis 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

In this case Arthur Ellis was editing under a ban which prohibited editing of articles which relate to Canadian politics. He had no business editing the article or becoming involved in a dispute regarding it. However this article has been a long standing problem and it was time it was seriously looked at. Fred Bauder 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Still wondering, Fred: Is Marsden a politician or a blogger? You still make no sense on this point. What is her supposed relationship to Warren Kinsella? The lefties say everything's political. They say I'm a guy whose got a PHD in canadian history and has written eight books... the kind of person who has no place on Wikipedia?Arthur Ellis 17:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither, she is a writer who customarily writes about Canadian politics. The nexus with Warren Kensella is a common interest in Canadian politics. Just use common sense. You are welcome on Wikipedia, just find something besides Canadian politics to write about. Fred Bauder 19:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thirty two million Canadians are interested in Canadian politics. George Bush is interested in Canadian politics. You are way out on a limb here. Time to back up, make the best face of it, and realize the "punishment" did not fit the "crime". I barely even understood the arbcom process, and I was on an island in the Pacific during most of it. You are just too invested in teh earlier Arbcom decision to realize why I've been angry --- this mess-- and that I was subjected to Bucketsofg's lawyering.Arthur Ellis 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Support RachelMarsden

Comment by others:

[edit] 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:

True in general. However, a sustained pattern of aggressive biased editing may result in loss of anonymity. Fred Bauder 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

But what happens when "aggressive editors" are actually doing the right thing? Is passivity the virtue that proects anonymity? "Be nice or we'll post your name?". This is fallacious and dangerous logic.64.26.147.106 14:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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:

More to it than that. If a biography of a living person contains only negative information that article and its talk page may be reduced to a stub by any user or speedy deleted by any administrator no matter how well-sourced the negative information and the commentary on it is.

Comment by parties:

Bucketsofg and his cabal call in "vandalism". You should see how many times Ceraurus and I were blocked for doing that. Small wonder we couldn't take Wiki rules seriously and believe admins are biased and have hidden agendas. Nothing, so far, has changed my mind. Arthur Ellis 17:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

It need not be available to either Wikipedia editors or to the public. If it is an unauthorized copy there is copyright violation.

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)

Publishing an unauthorized copy is a copyright violation. Fred Bauder 16:19, 19 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)

You clearly need to research copyright. Besides we are not referring to keeping a clipping of a newspaper article, but publishing an unauthorized copy on the internet. Fred Bauder 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The primary issue being raised is sourcing to the articles in question; if the source material is not being altered, the validity of it as a source is not governed by copyright law, as it takes about two seconds to change the link back to the original source instead of the database whose validity is being questioned. Bearcat 00:52, 22 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)

It is not keeping a copy and using it for reference when writing an article, but publishing it which is the violation. Fred Bauder 16:19, 19 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)

Wikipedia welcomes use of Lexus-Nexus, but does not condone unauthorized publishing of copyrighted material retrieved using that service. Fred Bauder 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ellis was asserting that Lexis-Nexis owned the copyright, which it doesn't. If there's a copyright issue, it's between the original publishers and Buckets, and Wikipedia can resolve any culpability it holds in the matter in about fifteen seconds flat, by simply changing the source links from a web URL to a simple footnote providing the article title, source publication and date. If Wikipedia does that, it cannot be held culpable in a copyright lawsuit, as it is not relying on material which constitutes a violation. Especially since Wikipedia's only actual requirement is that the source exist, not that it be accessible in a free web database for instant verification. It does not invalidate using the article itself as a source — it only invalidates linking to Buckets' database as a web URL, and as noted, Wikipedia does not have any requirement that such an URL needs to be provided at all. Bearcat 01:04, 22 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.

Right, it is assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that proper citation of the original source is sufficient. Fred Bauder 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Correct Fred Bauder 16:19, 19 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.

I think sending a copy to another user might be fair use. It is publishing an unauthorized copy that is the violation. Fred Bauder 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 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)

Excellent resolution. Fred Bauder 16:19, 19 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)

If a biography of a living person contains only negative information that article and its talk page may be reduced to a stub Does this go too far? Should Jeffrey Dahmer be stubbed because it doesn't say anything positive? Some people only generate coverage in reliable source media by doing bad things. That's not the case with Marsden, but at a minimum the Donnelly affair is notable, as it caused a university to rewrite its harrassment policy and overturn several other cases, and as you pointed out there seems not to be any commentary or analysis of Marsden's writings or political history by other writers. Thatcher131 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

Accepted Fred Bauder 16:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think it falls so far below our standards that speedy deletion is justified. Fred Bauder 16:23, 19 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)

Afraid so. Fred Bauder 16:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's the point that I've tried to make since Day 1 on Wikipedia. That's the belief that drove me up the wall with these people. Thank you, Fred Bauder. After me saying this so many times, without any support, and wondering if I was as nuts as these people say, someone has finally stepped forward and said I was right on this.Arthur Ellis 17:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

She is due courteous consideration of her complaints which you are not giving her. Fred Bauder 16:28, 19 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)

Yes, generous. Fred Bauder 16:28, 19 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)

If the article contained generous helpings of positive and neutral information also, that would be true. However, it does not. Fred Bauder 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then the appropriate response is for somebody to find properly sourced positive material and add it to the article. Removing properly sourced material that's already in the article is not an appropriate remedy. Bearcat 00:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bearcat wrote "the appropriate response is for somebody to find properly sourced positive material and add it to the article. Removing properly sourced material that's already in the article is not an appropriate remedy."

I've been thinking this for some time while reading through this workshop and looking for an appropriate place to say it. Since Bearcat already said it, I will simply say "Agree; thrown an NPOV tag on the article but don't delete it or its contents." --Richard 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 arbitrators:

No, a grossly unbalanced biography of a living person may be made into a stub by any user and speedy deleted by any administrator. Fred Bauder 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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)

The time to do that was yesterday, if not before. As it stands now it may properly be stubbed by any user or speedy deleted by any administrator and that will continue to be true until it meets minimum standards. Fred Bauder 16:46, 19 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

I haven't looked at the history enough to confirm this, but it does not matter. As the article exists now it is may be speedily deleted as an attack page. Fred Bauder 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rachel, I think most of us would agree that this article could use more basic biographical information about you. Where did you grow up, what has influenced your political views, when did you get married, that sort of thing. A while ago someone claiming to be your sister wanted to add mention your wedding, but the edit was removed because the information had never been published anywhere else. As long as there is a reliable, verifiable source for this information, I'm pretty sure it would stick. Kla'quot 06:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That type of information need not be sourced as it is not controversial, the subject's word is sufficient, as is her sisters; should they chose to add or provide it.

That type of information does need to be sourced, especially when it's being added by someone who's openly stated her own disdain of Wikipedia; what proof do you have that she wouldn't add it, and then three days later write a column stating that Wikipedia couldn't be trusted because it was wrongly reporting that she had just gotten married? Bearcat 02:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

If someone rewrites the article before it is deleted, it could be saved. But as it sits now it is subject to deletion at any time, in my opinion. Fred Bauder 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

Yes, but we need to keep our eye on the ball. This not some super tar baby. My intention, for now, is to establish firmly, with the support of the rest of the Arbitration Committee that a grossly biased biography of a living person is a proper candidate for speedy deletion. Misbehavior by the various users who dealt with it will take a back seat. Fred Bauder 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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:

Accepted Fred Bauder 16:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've not seen that yet. Fred Bauder 16:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if he was "BucketsofBauder" and focused his "work" on you and your former clients, you'd see it differently. Arthur Ellis 17:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, a conclusion that's only reachable if you proceed from the false assumption that Grewal was entitled to act with impunity in the tapes affair. Bearcat 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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)

Perfectly good excuse on Wikipedia. We are all learning. Fred Bauder 16:58, 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)

You claimed at the time that any citation of her CV at all constituted a copyright violation, which is patently false. You raised no concerns at the time on the basis of document storage. Bearcat 01:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Better nothing than a hatchet job

3) Any user may convert a grossly unbalanced biography of a living person to a stub. Any administrator may delete the article and its talk page. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style provides that biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Attack pages are subject to speedy deletion

4) A grossly unbalanced biography of a living person is considered an attack page for the purposes of speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G10.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"Unbalanced" is not a current speedy deletion criterion, even for a BLP. If we deleted every BLP that came across as overwhelmingly negative, we may end up having to delete pages such as Michael D. Brown and the pages of most suspected and convicted criminals. Stubbing may be a good compromise until more positive/non-negative material can be written. Kla'quot 17:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a substantial difference between a "suspected" criminal and a "convicted criminal", and neither have any bearing on Marsden. She is not Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan. She is a newspaper columnist who was once involvewd in a sexual harassment controvery.Arthur Ellis 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

More than once, actually. Bearcat 01:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No original research 1

1) WP:NOR requires that articles not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is relevant to the article, and so I'm bringing it up. How it applies will be elaborated in two further principles. Bucketsofg 16:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] No original research 2: no new syntheses

1) WP:NOR requires arguments be based on reputable third party sources; putting those sources together in a new way that creates a new synthesis can constitute a violation of WP:NOR

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Since this may be at the heart of what some people think I've done, I identify the principle so we can get it out there to talk about it. Bucketsofg 16:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what you've done. Arthur Ellis 20:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How is that what he's done? Bearcat 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] No Original Research 3: "Cherry-picking" might result in a new synthesis

1) Selectivity in the choice of facts to be presented or sources to be cited might create a new synthesis and therefore be a violation of WP:NOR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Again, I don't think this is what I did, but clarifying the principle might help us move the discussion forward. Bucketsofg 16:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You've done that to violate the bio and POV policies.Arthur Ellis 20:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] No original research 4: selective exclusion

1) Selectively excluding material may result in a new synthesis and therefore be inconsistent with WP:NOR

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This principle may be relevant to recent edits, which exclude certain documented facts. (Again, I'm not criticizing any recent edits, but think that this is a principle that should be discussed.) Bucketsofg 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between biographic material and allegations culled from newspapers. All history and biographical writing is selective.Arthur Ellis 20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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:

Accepted Fred Bauder 16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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:

Other than editing Rachel Marsden, other violations are outside the scope of this matter. Fred Bauder 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

That has already been established and he is banned from articles which related to Canadian politics. Fred Bauder 16:59, 19 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

He may be wrong, but that is not at issue here. Fred Bauder 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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:

Possibly, but bottom line, it does not conform with the standard required for a biography of a living person. Fred Bauder 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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)

It is not consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and may properly be speedy deleted. Fred Bauder 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Properly sourced allegations are consistent with BLP. Concerns about the balance of positive vs. negative material are resolved by adding positive material, not by deleting negative material that fully meets all of Wikipedia's source requirements. Bearcat 01:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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:

I think it is more likely that they did not realized how serious we are about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and that the article as it is presently constituted is an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. Fred Bauder 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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:

Accepted Fred Bauder 17:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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:

A cursory glance at the article establishes that it violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is essentially no positive information in the article. Fred Bauder 17:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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:

Other than improperly editing an article which concerns Canadian politics, a violation of a ban imposed on him due to prior disruption, Arthur Ellis has, as far I can see, done nothing wrong, other than calling me names. Fred Bauder 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sorry about that. "Act in haste, repent in liesure" will probably be on my tombstone.Arthur Ellis 20:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

That material does not have an adequate source anyway, like most of the detailed charges, countercharges and explanations. Fred Bauder 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

This article was a sorry thing a year ago when she complained. It is a little better now, but continues to violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. However obvious that may be, we need to air this issue out. Fred Bauder 17:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

I assume everyone presented the evidence and argument they thought relevant. Failure to answer evidence proves nothing. Fred Bauder 17:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have answered the point. He hasn't provided any substantial evidence of biased editing; he simply asserts that reversion diffs prove bias, working from the flawed assumption that he's so obviously and incontrovertibly right and we're so obviously and incontrovertibly wrong that any disagreement with his position is a priori biased. Bearcat 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

[edit] 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)

I'm not clear on this either. It seems that he started saving clippings in 1991, but perhaps he had a capacity to create a file dated 1991. But we are getting into pre-internet days when we go back that far. Fred Bauder 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the blog software allows you to assign a date to any entry. I put the date of publication of an article as the blog-date. This makes it easy to read through a series of articles chronologically. So, no, I have not been saving clippings since 1991, but since about March when I started work on the Donnelly-Marsden section. Bucketsofg 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] 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:

I am tempted to simply "go IP" and do what I want. A huge lifetime ban like that, coming without mediation, is both ludicrous, and I suspect, could, in other cases, cause someone to become a complete troll, with no respect for Wikipedia rules. I mean, someone, other than myself, of course, could see a lifetime ban on writing anything about everything in my country, whether I have, say, a PhD on the subject or not, as practically an invitation to disruption. Yet Lawyer Fred, (or Judge Freisler [5]), Bucketsofg's friend, shepherded such a lifetime ban on writing anything about my own country, whether I have a PhD in the subject matter or not, through the arbcom process. Of course, in my case, I do realize how important it is to keep me away from anything that could even wildly be construed as Canadian politics and the blogosphere, for the betterment of the project and all that. harrumph.Arthur Ellis 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your editing is quite disruptive. I think the ban is righteous. Fred Bauder 17:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He's still at it [6]. Unless you specifically name every article he is banned from, I forsee a future of pettifoggery. Thatcher131 17:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 • logs • block user • block log) has extensively edited Rachel Marsden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 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)

huh?Arthur Ellis 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. At the time that Marsden closed, I pointed out to the Arbitration Committee that as written their remedy would leave the Marsden uncovered and Ellis claimed it wouldn't/shouldn't be (here). I also argued against ArbComm taking this case, suggesting that it would be sufficient for them to merely declare that Marsden was included (here). In light of this, I think it is wrong to impose any penalty for the editing of Marsden. If Ellis broke the ban in other ways, he should be punished for those, not for cases in which the remedy was ambiguous. Bucketsofg 19:36, 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, I had a one-day block for mistakenly editing Mark Bourrie instead of writing on the talk page.

Third, punishing someone for bringing a good-faith action is an anathema in any non-fascist jurisdiction. But you can ban me if you want. After this is over, I really won't care. Hell, you should ban everyone who doesn't follow the party line. Actually, your little bans, etc., make you look like fools and are hardly a way of bringing people into the big tent. Arthur Ellis 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The edit of Sept. 27 that Ellis claims was a mistake, made through 209.217.84.167 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log), blanked the section on the Kinsella-Bourrie lawsuit[7]; as it happens, exactly the same edit was made by 64.230.112.7 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) on Sept. 20 and by 64.230.112.190 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log), also on Sept. 20. Bucketsofg 13:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, so what? They are floating IPs. Could be my neighbour, could be Warren Kinsella's brother, could be Gurmant Grewal. Hell, I could be Gurman Grewal. Certainly no more of a coincidence than the Marsden entry taking root on Wikipedia just as Marsden gets the NatPost column. Doesn't mean anything. Ask your lawyer, Freddy.

Why alienate me so I'm tempted to close my account, just go IP and do what I want? Arthur Ellis

[edit] RachelMarsden

4) RachelMarsden (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has stated that she is Rachel Marsden and both made a statement in the request [8] and offered a number of comments to the /Workshop page. She has made a few edits to Rachel Marsden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Confirmed by email from Rachel Marsden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

She is, most certainly, Rachel Marsden, and she has shown incredible restraint vis a vis her legal rights. I suspect that may not last, but you would have to ask her. That would mean engaging her in discussion in a respectful way, not having the likes of admin Bearcat and listings typist Ian King whine at her and insult her. I'm not sure what part of "the entry is libelous in Ontario, which has jurisdiction to hear an action on it" you people don't get? I don't unsderstand why so many of you people think Wikipedia is some sort of law unto itself. Arthur Ellis 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've engaged her in a respectful way; I have neither "whined" nor insulted her one single solitary time in this discussion. Bearcat 18:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Rachel Marsden

5) Rachel_Marsden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has a long troubled history. Despite a call by Rachel Marsden to Jimbo and efforts to bring the article up to reasonable standards, problems persist. Rachel Marsden has requested its removal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

And what did Jimbo do? Almost nothing. What did Fred do? Nothing at all, except pontificate. What did I do? Fight tooth and nail, and be treated like shit. Please, then, deal with the problems in the article. Finally. For a change. Arthur Ellis 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Problems persist" sounds like a content finding, unless you are referring to problems in the sense of "unhappy people" rather than "problems in the actual article." What are your criteria for reasonable standards? Kla'quot 05:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What is obviously lacking is strong positive statements by prominent persons such as Bill O'Reilly who admire and support her. Fred Bauder 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will add that to the to-do list that's on the article talk-page, but I'm not sure it's that easy to find important people saying nice things about her. (A quick google of Marsden's name at foxnews.com and billoreilly.com come up with nothing.) Judi McLeod's support might be expanded a little--if I recall correctly she once described herself as a "fan"--but McLeod's hardly in the big leagues. Bucketsofg 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As the article stands now it may be reduced to a stub by any user, or speedy deleted by any administrator. It contains almost no information other than designation of the subject as a "conservative" which is not negative. Much of the negative material lacks an adequate source being simply reports of allegations. A great deal of creative effort has gone into hunting up negative material. No effort seems to have gone into identifying and illustrating her political views or documenting those who support her. Fred Bauder 14:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your candor, Fred. Can you be more specific? The Donnelly-Marsden affair is supported by much contemporary reportage in serious newspapers, which was based among other things on the leaked report. The Morgan conviction is based on the court documents. Do you mean O'Hagan and Boyd? Yes, someone should add something about her as a pundit, something that encourage Arthur to do months ago. Bucketsofg 15:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That there was a flap at Simon Fraser is well sourced, the details of he said, she said are not despite them being reported in newspapers. Likewise in the case of the Morgan accusations there was no conviction, but a conditional discharge (what in Colorado would be called a deferred prosecution). And in that case too, there is no good source for he said, she said allegations. But what stands out is the absence of positive or even neutral information. Fred Bauder 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The lack of positive/neutral info perhaps is about adding material. The Morgan case is not he-said-she-said. Her conditional discharge involved her pleading guilty and having her lawyer and the crown prosecutor agreeing to a statement (R. v. Marsden (2004 BCPC 0369; File No: 140482-1, Vancouver: http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/03/p04_0369.htm). That statement is surely the best source available to us. Please sign this, whoever wrote i).

This is content dispute, hijacked again by self-admitted obsessive Bucketsofg. Arthur Ellis 15:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

6) Marsden-Donnelly harassment case (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was created by Bucketsofg (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) on February 26, 2006 [9]. In its present form it suffers from many of the same deficiencies as Rachel Marsden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Bearcat

7) Bearcat (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), contesting the issue with Arthur Ellis, has maintained that the existing version of Rachel Marsden does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons reverting with the comment "rv; the removed material does *not* fail BLP as it's all carefully sourced and doesn't make any POV claims that exceed what's supported by the sources" "rv; article does NOT fail BLP" "no, it does not; any further removal of properly sourced material from this article will be grounds for immediate editblocking". He was joined by Bucketsofg "revert to Bearcat" "revert (present article conforms to BLP-policy)" [10]. Bearcat [11]. Bearcat then protected the article in its negative form [12].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

And the point here is what? Bearcat 02:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Arthur Ellis

8) Although he was violating a ban on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics, Arthur Ellis's edits to Rachel Marsden and his talk page comments conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment. But he did use the Checkuser confirmed sock Craigleithian (talk • contribs) to make these edits. Bucketsofg 18:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So? No more of a big deal than Bogman2. When it's mine, from before the arbitration, it's a sock. When it's yours, it's a convenience. Any wonder why I complain of a double standard? Arthur Ellis 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The negatively biased version

9) The typical negatively biased version of Rachel Marsden contains elaborate negative information, but very little positive or neutral information. It usually features this external link: The Strange Allure of Ms. Marsden: How does a serial stalker, convict and fraud artist end up Canada's hottest young conservative pundit? Quite easily, actually by Kevin Steel published in the Western Standard, July 11, 2005. (PDF file).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment. Yes, material that will be contrued as negative is extensive and there is little positive. I want to point out, however, that this is a product of what evidence exists. Do a lexis-nexis search of Rachel Marsden and what do you get? Some two hundred articles, most of which are about the various controversies. What I did was more or less do a dump from lexis-nexis and try to boil down what was there into the relative sections of the article. I think if Fred or Thatcher were to do the same exercise the resulting entry would be similar. (This is not to criticize Fred's reaction to the article or Thatcher's recent edit, but both are reactions to the recent version of the article without direct acquaintance with the material behind it.) Now, there is surely a built-in bias within the media to print the controversial and negative rather than the everyday and positive, but I'm not sure how it is that we correct for that without slipping into original research. Bucketsofg 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps no article is possible Fred Bauder 01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, the bottom line was whether information in an article was verifiable, not whether the extant sources conform to subjective interpretations of how balanced they are between positive and negative material. No notable person can ever be impossible to write a Wikipedia article about; if Wikipedia ever reaches the point where that can be said of so much as one otherwise valid encyclopedia topic, that will be the moment at which the entire Wikipedia project becomes worthless. Bearcat 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

When you're looking for evidence to blacken Marsden, it it exists. But your fabulous research skills sure do fall down flat when it comes to finding anything positive about Marsden. The media has been all over Marsden because she's an attractive young woman, and there's an element of sex (or lots of dirty talk, which you founght hard to keep in the entry). So anything she does, things that are otherwise not newsworthy, get into print. Let's paw through the New York Post's P6 and National Enquirer and fatten the bios of American celebrities. Or not. Arthur Ellis 20:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Interestingly, the Western Standard is a conservative magazine and among the points the article makes is that Marsden may be hurting the conservative cause by being so outrageous. Although I do not know the magazine in general, it's hard for me to see how this article could be accepted as a reliable neutral source (just look at the title). I wonder if a similar article from Mother Jones describing how Joe Lieberman is dangerous to the progessive movement would be as blindly accepted. Thatcher131 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The title, in and of itself, is a libel. Arthur Ellis 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Ellis' edits to Rachel Marsden have not been unacceptably disruptive

1) Although Arthur Ellis edited Rachel Marsden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) in violation of his earlier ban, the edits (blanking large sections, revert warring with Bearcat and Bucketsofg) were no more disruptive in context than the edits of Bearcat and Bucketsofg, and would not have justified an article ban if it were not for other disruptive edits Ellis made to other artcles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I reject any characterization of my edits as "disruptive", even if only as a matter of comparison. Bearcat 04:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Unless Fred is going to watchlist Rachel Marsden to make sure it doesn't drift back to the way it was (under the influence of current or new editors), it might be reasonable to allow Ellis to edit it. Below I propose probation, allowing Ellis to edit the article but permitting an uninvolved admin to ban him from it if he becomes disruptive. The key thing for Ellis to understand is that disruptive editing is never tolerated, even in a just cause. There are various remedies including third opinion, RFC, and two levels of mediation, none of which he tried before. Thatcher131 04:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons needed to be clarified. Fred Bauder 17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons needed to be clarified. Fred Bauder 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

He is already banned Fred Bauder 17:51, 19 October 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)

Your reverting of the POV article and your comments on the talk page, and here, show ample evidence of your bias.Arthur Ellis

Comment by others:

[edit] 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:

We don't do that sort of thing. The article will be edited using the usual wiki process. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is a wiki, any user who follows our policies may edit the article, including your fans. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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[13]; 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)

Any user has the right to stubbify an article which grossly violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. However they should explain why that is justified. Blanking without comment is too easily confused with vandalism. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 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) No attacks were made. 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" (edit summary) and discussed the problem with Ellis on his talk page[14]; Ellis soon fixed the problem [15] 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 [16], a fact that he recognized when he claimed responsibility for the current version of the article[17]

I got as many changes to the article as I could, given the circumstances. This is how it looked when I started: [18]. 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:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

They are subject to speedy deletion as violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Fred Bauder 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons needed to be clarified Fred Bauder 18:15, 19 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)

We don't support libel in either jurisdiction. Fred Bauder 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we do; I'm dismissing Ellis' argument that my location or Marsden's has a bearing on the matter. And I still haven't seen any concrete evidence that the article actually violates either Canadian or American libel law, just repeated assertions. Bearcat 00:46, 22 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 [19] 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 [20]. 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)

The problem is not so much libel as concentration on negative press reports combined with near total absence of any other material. Fred Bauder 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then the problem should be fixed by adding positive material, not by removing properly sourced negative stuff. Bearcat 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is libel. The entry is libelous. The behaviour of Wikipedia admins -- Bucketsofg, Bearcat, even Bauder and Wales -- shows, for the first two, malice, and for the latter two, recklessness. That gets us pretty far into punitive damages. Since Marsden is, in fact, a freelancer depending on her reputation to get work, and since the Wikipedia entry is the first thing that comes up on Google, I could, having followed libel law in Ontario professionally for more than 25 years, see damages in the high six figures, maybe more, since the malice has been so determined and the recklessness has been so outrageous. I don't know how many times I have to spell this out to you. And I do not know why she hasn't sued. Despite what Bucketsofg and his friends think, she would have no trouble finding someone to take such a case on a contingency fee arrangement. Wikipedia has no special status in law, in Ontario or anywhere else. Arthur Ellis 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My "behaviour" shows no malice whatsoever. And you still haven't shown how the entry is libellous; you've simply repeatedly asserted that it is. Bearcat 00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

It does, there is no limit on reversion of poorly sourced controversial material in the biography of a living person. Fred Bauder 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Again, a violation of courtesy. He was essentially correct in this instance. Fred Bauder 18:25, 19 October 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)

If you continue with this dispute you will be blocked. You are banned from articles which relate to Canadian politics. That includes disputes over them. You may have been right, but the ban is still in effect. Fred Bauder 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"You may have been right, but the ban is still in effect". Priceless.64.26.147.106 14:42, 21 October 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)

This article was has been the object of concern for some time. Fred Bauder 18:25, 19 October 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.

Yes, overwealmingly negative. Fred Bauder 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think the rating system was looking at other issues. Fred Bauder 18:25, 19 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:

[edit] 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:

If we find any. Fred Bauder 18:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Irrelevant Why is anyone worried about blocking people they don't like or who annoy them? By that definition, the few Wiki editors who have been obsessively guarding this libelous article over the past year and a half should have been tossed. Thankfully, Arthur Ellis is more persistent than they are (although I'm sure that annoys them). If it weren't for him, this article about me would be even worse than it is, since I am self-employed and work on a "billable hour" basis, and don't have the time to come on here and fight this libel every day. User:Rachel Marsden 03:18, 20 October 2006

Nobody involved in this debate has violated any Wikipedia policy, except Arthur and the sockpuppets. Bearcat 00:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] 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)

Her article is in arbitration because I brought it here. You, Fred, knew it stank. I was the only person to fight to do anything about it! You, and many others, let me take a pounding on this, let people from the Marsden entry harass me on Wikipedia, and now you have the gall to suggest this is Wikipedia's action. Arthur Ellis 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Does Saddam Hussein Run This Joint? No, seriously. Is there any allowable dissent that doesn't get quashed? If it weren't for Arthur Ellis, this article would be more libelous than it already is. I am very thankful for his efforts, seeing as how I generally avoid coming on here because the place gives me a headache (no offence). But why is it that if someone who has a different point of view than the clique of editors who have been obsessed with this Wiki article for a year and a half is equally as persistent and dedicated as the clique (only to truth and fairness instead of bias and smears), the same editors start making noises about banning him? So he's 'testing your patience'. That means he's only as persistent as you are (and perhaps, incredibly, more so), and for that, I'm very thankful. Rachel Marsden

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|links|watch|logs). 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)

Rachel, Arthur made a pest of himself for months before being banned from editing articles related to Candian politics in his prior arbitration case. (For example, calling Warren Kinsella a "psychopath"). It may be that he was unaware that this ban extended to columnists who write about politics; now that that has been made clear he continues to violate the ban. There are many peaceful ways he could have dealt with concerns about your article, and he tried none of them. In fact, he didn't even mention you in his prior arbitration case. Suppose you have legitimate complaints about the city government; how seriously do you think those complaints will be taken once you are repeatedly caught spray painting grafitti on the walls of City Hall. Thatcher131 11:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he was on about this from his first day on Wikipedia, and before that, if he was Ceraurus. Look at the article history and talk page. He did talk about it in the Kinsella arbcom. His actions on Marsden were used 'against him' by his opponents and the arbitrators. Now Thatcher has some sort of conversion and, like Fred Bauder, wades in to take credit for fixing this awful, awful article. How about that? 137.122.201.94 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

Only if necessary. Let's see if a decent article can be written. Fred Bauder 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

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:

[edit] Puppet prevention 2

1) Given the scale and scope of puppetry, together with the incorrigibility of the puppeteer (see e.g., [21]), 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:

[edit] 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. It is theft of lexis-nexis stock in trade. Again, I have warned about this many times, to no avail.Arthur Ellis 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim the material was copied from a Lexis-Nexis archive, as opposed from being copied from the original article? Fred Bauder 16:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lexis-Nexis does not own the copyright on the material in question. Whatever issues are raised by the matter at hand, copyright is not one of them. Bearcat 18:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Because he says he got it from lexis-nexis and stored it in his blog.Arthur Ellis

Comment by others:

[edit] 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)

Okay, he has totally crossed the WP:NLT line. Geedubber 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, Thatcher's point is that even if Buckets may not link to his own website, he still may cite to the original document and its intermediate source, assuming that the intermediate source is reliable and not a copyright violation. Based on your comment above, I think the two of you actually agree on this point. TheronJ 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not threatening to sue anyone. My copyright's not breached, my goods have not been stolen and I haven't been libeled. I am just warning that actions by some other posters leave Wikipedia open to lawsuits from people who have been libeled or who have been ripped off. You cannot make a wish, quote Wikipedia policy, and make the legal realities of this world go away.Arthur Ellis 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is, you're arguing the false claim that we can't cite any data from Lexis-Nexis at all. The reality is that we can still cite the same articles precisely as they are now; we just can't provide a convenience link to a public archive of them, which is not the same thing as invalidating any use of the articles in question as a source. Bearcat 02:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

This is good, but does not address the question of retrieval from a site which violates copyright. I speak of the "where you got it" clause, which ought not be to an unauthorized copy. Fred Bauder 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree. Arthur Ellis 15:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Fred, I'm not sure what your objection is, other than maybe you are concerned about pass-through and possible adulteration by a third party. For example, a citation "LA Times, as retrieved from LexisNexis" is acceptable, but "LA Times, from a LexisNexis retrieval archived at Thatcherblog" is a problem, but not because of the copyright implications. Rather, it is a problem because the editor has no way of knowing if Thatcher's copy is true and accurate. (The editor adding the citation is not a party to Thatcher's copyright violation, and that fact that at some point the source passed through unclean hands does not reduce its reliability unless it was altered.) I think the problem can be addressed by requiring citation to all intermediate sources, and discounting intermediate sources that are not reliable. (see below)

A problem because of the copyright implications. No reason to suppose Thatcher would have changed the text. Fred Bauder 18:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't invalidate the original source itself, however, when it takes all of three seconds to change the citation from "LA Times, from a LexisNexis retrieval archived at Thatcherblog" back to "LA Times, as retrieved from LexisNexis". So there's simply no valid argument that a blogger archiving the documents in their own webspace creates anything more than a minor problem for Wikipedia that can be fixed by taking five minutes to edit out the "archived at Thatcherblog" part of the citations. Bearcat 02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to violations of copyright to be removed

1.3) Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, articles should not link directly to copies of press reports archived on blogs or other sites 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 all intermediate sources (i.e. "as retrieved from LexisNexis on October 16, 2006") if intermediate sources were used. Intermediate sources should be reliable. In cases where an intermediate source is not considered reliable and the source is questioned, the source should be removed until an editor can verify it through the original or through a reliable intermediate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This may represent a policy shift on Wikipedia, and could cause problems elsewhere, especially at Scientology-related articles. However it seems the only way to deal with the problem of convenience copies of reliable sources stored elsewhere. My thought is that the fact that it is stored in violation of copyright is not a problem for us as long as we don't link to it; the real problem is the possibilty of alteration. Although the result is a bit absurd in this case as it would allow Bucketsofg to cite LexisNexis as an intermediate source for a newspaper article (he retrieved it originally) but would not allow me to cite "LA Times from LexisNexis as seen on Buckets of data". Thatcher131 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We also have to be concerned with attempts to game the system. If I edited Rachel Marsden to remove all the links to articles that Bucketsofg added, and then re-added them after verifying them through LexisNexis myself, I doubt Ellis would be happy, although it would satisfy his technical objection. Thatcher131 17:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of analyzing motives, although I'm willing to have my mind changed. If Ellis forces someone (including Buckets) to verify the sources through reliable intermediates, we've probably improved the encyclopedia, unless you think the relevant guideline is pointless. (I'm not sure, but if so, let's change the guideline through talk, not arbcom). TheronJ 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think these remedies follow from the citation guideline, which states that editors shouldn't include information that they didn't get from a reliable source. There's no question that Lexis/Nexis (or, IMHO, Google books or Amazon search inside) are reliable intermediate sources, but the question is whether Buckets' website can be relied on to accurately reprint the materials he's got. I think so, but I can see why Rachel Marsden supporters might demand more. (The same result obtains for scientology). Arguably, all the verification policy requires is a verifiable citation, even if the editor adding the info hasn't seen a reliable source copy of the document, but that's probably best addressed on the talk pages, not here. TheronJ 17:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Ellis blocked for 1 day

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 1 day. This nominal block for a serious offense reflects his misunderstanding of the scope of the ban.

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)

9.9! - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you misunderstood the scope of the ban. It does include articles of this type. I'll reduce your block to a nominal 1 day or so. Fred Bauder 16:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why bother? Is a miscarriage of justice less of one if the penalty is minimal? I think you should put this to a vote from other arbitrators, so you will learn what others think of this obscene suggestion. As well, is was rather loathsome of you to change the ban from "six months" to "one day", and leave my comments about a six-month ban. I did not "misunderstand" the scope of the ban. It was stupid to ban me from anything. The original arbcom concerned Warren Kinsella, who, other than the fact he's a newspaper columnist, has nothing in common with Rachel Marsden. I know very well what "blog" and "politician" mean. Fred, I really wonder how you expect consensus when you act in ways that are so provocative.Arthur Ellis 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arthur, if it helps, it seems obvious to me that a ban from discussing "Canadian politics and its blogosphere" would include a page discussing Marden, "a Canadian media personality and political commentator." At the very least, I don't think the ban is crazy or a miscarriage of justice. (In any event, nothing in the workshop counts until it gets voted on in the "proposed decision" phase, so the other arbs will have their say. My recommendation would be to explain, civilly, why you think Fred is wrong and see if you can convince either Fred or the other arbs. For example, if you have evidence that Marsden isn't really understood as a Canadian political commentator, you could add that to the evidence page and link to it here). TheronJ 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I simply and honestly have never seen it as a political entry. There's one word -- conservative -- about her politics. All the rest is about he media career and the stalking allegations. She almost always writes about world politics. She's based in Toronto, not the capital, Ottawa. Now, if one takes the same logic, I should not write about anyone who has an impact on Canadian politics. That would have to include George Bush, Mullah Omar, and Chevron Oil. It's a ban that can be stretched to a far limit, it was an outrageous ban to start with, going much farther than was called for in the Warren Kinsella arbitration. It's as though someone got into an edit war on James Carville, was banned from writing anything about American politics and the blogosphere, and got into trouble by editing Charles Manson.Arthur Ellis 18:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For a more accurate metaphor, try replacing Charles Manson with Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. Bearcat 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Except Marsden very rarely writes on Canadian politics. And, even if she did, sometimes George Will does, too. Arthur Ellis 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Of the 20 most recent columns published on her website here, fully 10 are primarily or partially about Canadian politics. You're working a pretty unique definition of "rarely". Sure, she writes far more about Canadian politics when she's writing for the Toronto Sun or the National Post than she does when she's writing for the Washington Times or the New York Post, but that's a matter of knowing your market. Bearcat 18:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First, Bearcat should hang his head in shame, not indulge in shreaking attacks. Secondly, as I'v said, columnists are not politicians, nor are they bloggers. What fred says may be common, but it is not sense. Has anyone esle ever been banned about writing anything about the country they live in? Could there be a more ridiculous Wikipedia ruling? Arthur Ellis 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you stop with the ad hominem already? I have not posted a single solitary word in this entire debate which qualifies as a "shrieking attack". And columnists who write about politics fit quite comfortably inside any normal interpretation of "articles which relate to Canadian politics". Bearcat 00:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Oppose. My use of an alternate account conforms to WP:SOCK, which forbids the use of socks to skirt the rules, but allows the use of socks for other purposes: WP:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_multiple_accounts. Bucketsofg 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Krikey. Now you're dragging the Jews into this. Arthur Ellis 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Kosher" has passed into mainstream English usage. Fred Bauder 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So has "asshole". Someone should let Fred know the difference between "arbitrate" and "advocate".Arthur Ellis 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Ellis statement

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't want to be a Wikipedia pariah or some kind of troll. I want to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. That is very difficult when so many editors and admins are ready to pounce and denounce on anything that they don't like, and on people who aren't part of their cliques.Arthur Ellis 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden

1) Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If balance is an issue, then all editors have the right to add positive information to balance it; what they don't have is the right to blank properly sourced and verifiable information. Nothing in the article is "poorly sourced". Bearcat 00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Bearcat and Bucketsofg

2) Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Maybe "cautious" is a better word than "conservative".Arthur Ellis 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I too find formulation problematic. I would argue that in fact Bearcat and I adhered to a strict interpretation of BLP that emphasizes verifiability of negative material. The BLP page, for example, mentions the possibility that a politician's affair, if mentioned in the New York Times, would be appropriately included. Fred is emphasizing "do no harm". Might the point be worded better as something along the lines of "Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to an interpretation of BLP that shows more sensitivity to the subject"? Bucketsofg 17:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Blinded, yet again, by your POV. A politician holds a position of trust. An extramarital affair might (and I would argue, would not, unless, like the Gary Hart affair, it had impact on his ar her political career), belong in an entry. Marsden is not elected. She holds no public trust, she controls no public money. Despite the fact she's a newspaper columnis, she is a private citizen. The only conceivable reason for including anything about her romantic life-- rough and tumble as it may seem -- is the notoriety of the SFU stuff. Does Wikipedia put in drunk driving arrests, etc, or people of middling or minor importance.? Arthur Ellis 20:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If the drunk driving arrests, etc., are documentable and verifiable (as to the existence of the allegations, not necessarily the truth of them), then yes, we do. Wikipedia does not judge these things by an arbitrary "public figure" vs. "private figure" distinction (and besides, as a media personality Rachel is a public figure whether she likes it or not); we judge these things by whether they're verifiable in reliable sources. For a person of middling or minor importance, verifiable sources might not be there to confirm a drunk driving arrest in the first place, because the media might not consider the person notable enough to warrant using news space to cover a topic of minor interest — but if the sources exist, then Wikipedia can and does use them regardless of how much of a "public trust" the person does or doesn't hold (as if "public trust" were a valid argument in the first place). Bearcat 00:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My edits have conformed to BLP. BLP specifically states that properly sourced negative material stays in an article whether the subject likes it or not. If you're rejecting the validity of the sources themselves, you'd best make that clear. Otherwise, I've done nothing that in any way contradicts or subjectively interprets BLP — I've conformed to the policy precisely on the face of what it says. Bearcat 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Arthur Ellis placed on probation

1) Arthur Ellis' article ban imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella is narrowed to exclude Rachel Marsden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Arthur Ellis is placed on standard probation. He may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from any article he edits disruptively for an appropriate period of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

He is not on probation now. Putting him on is to greatly increase the penalty. Fred Bauder 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Since McDevit Dmcdevit (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has rejected Ellis' appeal, this might be an appropriate place to consider whether the article ban should be narrowed. Thatcher131 04:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is McDevit and why would Ellis appeal to him? Fred Bauder 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. (Ellis has appealed on the main RfAR page. It is rare that the first arbitrator to vote doesn't signal the direction of all the arbitrators, and with the new requirement for four net votes to accept, five of the remaining 6 active arbitrators would have to agree to hear the case.) Thatcher131 13:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bucketsofg defiant, unrepentent

1) Bucketsofg continues to abuse his admin powers by edit-warring and reverting Rachel Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, blocking people who edit these pages, and edit-protecting the POV versions. 64.26.147.133 22:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

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

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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)