Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 19:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

[edit] Involved parties

Arthur Ellis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Pete Peters (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
CJCurrie (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
209.217.93.60 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
209.217.66.179 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
207.35.190.72 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
72.136.201.103 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
69.157.70.145 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Ceraurus (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

[edit] Statement by Arthur Ellis (talk • contribs)

No effort was made at mediation or any other dispute resolution. Two admins, one of whom admits his bias against me (for "slandering" Kinsella with sourced material -- I challenge him to find anything I posted that was not sourced) and another who does not admit bias, but should, have been involved in this dispute. A simple examination of the Kinsella article's history page [1] shows Crazyrussian reverted almost all of the edits that were not done by Pete Peters and his socks, despite the fact the edits were always sources, and that I asked why sourced material was being taken out of the article or reverted. When consensus was achieved on the article -- July 1 [2] and July 8 [3] -- admin crazyrussian actually allowed Peters to dismantle the consensus version. He was also allowed to keep raising issues and straw men, then refusing to provide any proof of his allegations that the article was incomplete or improperly sourced. Here's a sample of that kind of activity: [4]. He would create work, ignore the result, and attack the article again. This is very clear in the talk page and the edits for those dates. Crazyrussian very quickly stuffed them into archives, but they survive.

I edited on Wikipedia for about a month before I ever saw the Kinsella page. I added quite a bit of material to entries on history, transportation and geography without any edit warring or reversions.

I found myself drawn into the controversy after reading the Kinsella entry and seeing that it was, originally, a vanity project to promote Kinsella and in related pages, his band and his book, Party Favours. I, along with a couple of other posters, sourced and wrote a more accurate section on Kinsella's role in the lead-up to the Sponsorship Scandal. It was constantly reverted and rewritten, often by an IP that once actually said it was Kinsella (giving permission to use a photo) to downplay Kinsella's role in this, admittedly, complicated ad contract scheme. The "sponsorship scandal" cost Canadian taxpayers $100 million in graft and kickbacks, and resulted in the national Liberal Party being disgraced and defeated this year. After my first edits of the Kinsella piece, Pete Peters registered [5] and immediately began vandalizing the Mark Bourrie [6] entry (his first post), trolling my edits, posting sock puppet tags on my talk page, and, everywhere he could, tried to discredit my edits by saying I was a sock puppet for a Wikipedia editor whose account is indefintely blocked because of a revert war with Bucketsofg and, (ironically), Homeontherange. Nothing was done to stop this vandalism, trolling and outing.

We got into edit warring on several pages, and my behaviour was sometimes reprehensible. I did work with a couple of people in Ottawa through IPs to try to keep the sourced and complete Kinsella entry. I did use some IPs as socks in this dispute, but I was not the only one. I wish I had not acted that way, but I believe it is important for Wikipedia to be factual. I also believe that Pete Peters both registered and acted in bad faith, goaded me, and got quite good at pushing my buttons. I believe he was also very good, at least for a while, at currying favor with Wikipedia admins, especially Crzrussian and Radiokirk, who both adopted his cause.

I believe I never initiated personal attacks. I did, however, respond aggressively to repeated (and repeated and repeated) provocations by Pete Peters and, to a lesser extent, JCCurrie and Geedubber. In the discussion, which I hope you will read, I ask them time and again to deal with facts of the entry -- each of which was sourced -- and discuss the points they believe are wrong, but, from Peters, I got personal abuse. CrazyRussian, believing, as he says, that I was "slandering" (in print it's called libel, but, hey, who's a lawyer around here?) Kinsella, simply ignored my arguments, reverted my changes, and help set me up for 3RR. As well, he, along with RadioKirk, ignored all the complaints I made to them on their user pages about Peters and anonymous IPs trolling talk pages and edit summaries saying I was Mark Bourrie. Here, Radiokirk takes up Ellis' cause re: the Kinsella page and trolls/outs me on Crazyrussian's talk page: [7] Nothing was ever done to control this trolling/outing. As well, they refused to block Peters when I pointed out he had broken the 3RR.

No, Arthur, only the last line was RadioKirk's. The comment you're complaining about was left by 61.35.176.151 (talk • contribs) [8] - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That could have been made clear, and you could have answered my queries -- but you never did.Arthur Ellis 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the talk pages for these two admins to see how they dealt with Peters and me. In both cases, the admins and Peters worked very amiably indeed. Crazyrussian touches on this very lightly, when, in fact, a review of the Warren Kinsella talk pages, especially after July 1, shows how blatant this was. Radiokirk was repeatedly informed of Peters' harassment [9] Radiokirk actually coached Peters on ways to make Bourrie (believing it was me) look bad in the Kinsella article (see their talk page discussions of July 3) while at the same time refusing to stop Peters from, essentially, gutting the entry.

I want to stress that the Wiki article on Kinsella, as it stands now, is properly sourced and is accurate. Geedubber is disengeneous when he says some material came from "kinsellasux.blogspot.com". This material was, in fact, Lexis Nexis printouts of articles from major Canadian newspapers assembled as an archive by the poster. He knew very well that was the case, reverted a version of the entry that used one of these articles, then goaded me by saying my reverts were used up. I then called him dishonest, and I still do believe he was.

On July 1, and on July 8, various posters worked out compromises on the Kinsella page. It took about a day, with the help, mainly, of crazyrussian. Both times, Peters flounced at the first sign of compromise, then came back and changed the compromise version of the article. What was more aggravating, though, was that crazyrussian, who had obviously (until July 18) adopted Peters' cause, not only allowed this to happen but also ran interference for him.

As for the Bourrie AfD, not a single IP voted on it before crzrussian had the good sense to (finally) shut it down. One IP did post that Bourrie had some 86,000 Google hits, after Peters posted that Bourrie had no profile at all on Google [10].

As for "Marie Tessier", the checkuser came back "likely", not, as crzrussian says, positive. I don't know how they came to this decision. It is certainly not through IP checks. I take it she (it) and I edited several pages in common. I think everyone involved in the Kinsella fight did. Maybe she was an onlooker. I don't know.

I have a Sympatico (Bell Canada) account. Bell and a Canadian cable company, Rogers, split the high-speed business in my city of 1 million people. They use extremely fluid IPs. Mine changes every hour or two. I don't believe there's any way, other than a bizarre coincidence, that Tessier and I have the same IP. We certainly did not have the same IP number at the same time. There may be "blocks" of Sympatico IPs in Ottawa. They would be very large blocks indeed, tens of thousands of IP numbers. Blocking all Ottawa Sympatico IPs, as has been suggested, would put half of Canada's capital off Wikipedia.

I don't really care whether I'm on Wikipedia anymore. I must say it has been an unpleasant, unfulfilling experience. I volunteered my time, talent and expertise, and I took a lot of abuse. I also became angry enough to give abuse back, and the experience makes me ill. I do hope you will look at the various versions of the listing and look at the sourcing and decide for yourselves which one is best.

I did a WHO IS on the IP that has posted several threats on the Mark Bourrie entry, including one today (re: his membership in the Canadian press gallery; sending derogatory material to his thesis supervisors, etc):

IP Address : 207.35.190.72 [ 207.35.190.72 ]

ISP : Bell Canada

Organization : Pollara

Location : CA, Canada

City : Toronto, ON m5r1c1

CustName: Pollara

Address: 101 Yorkville, Suite 301

City: Toronto

StateProv: Ontario

PostalCode: M5R 1C1

Country: CA

This is the address of Warren Kinsella's office.

Also interesting that Crazyrussian would block Pete Peters partly for bad faith AfD of Mark Bourrie after Crazyrussian and Peters had this discussion on the Warren Kinsella discussion page:

Merge Debate I was wondering should we just Merge the Mark Bourrie entry as a paragraph in the WK entry? Pete Peters 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Put up the template and we'll see. Arthur Ellis 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not too sure how to do it. But thank you Arthur for deleting my question on the Mark Bourrie discussion page. Pete Peters 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if outing Wikipedia editors is your bag, perhaps you should tell us all about yourself. If you think people really want to see the Bourrie and Kinsella pages merged, go ask one of your admin pals to do it for you. Or quit making mischief.Arthur Ellis 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Pete Peters 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Perhaps I should re-phrase. Without Kinsella, Bourrie would have never gotten a wiki entry. My point is not to merge the two, but to make Bourrie a paragraph in the Kinsella entry. Pete Peters 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Put Bourrie up for deletion, then. Arthur Ellis 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Use {{mergeto|Warren Kinsella}} - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Arthur Ellis 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Ceraurus is now listed as a party. Since he's indefinitely blocked, I doubt very much we'll be hearing from him.Arthur Ellis 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestion that I knowingly "coached" anyone into anything other than mutual cooperation and NPOV is quickly demonstrated ridiculous. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 07:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

All I ask the arbitrators to do is read the talk pages and look at the evolution of these pages. You will find nothing but abuse heaped on Bourrie and on me. You will see a very clear pattern of bias by the three admins, obvious conflict of interest, encouragement, or, at the very least, toleration of Peters' trollings, accusations and attempted outings. Most frustrating to me, you will see their complete and utter focus on personality and complete and utter lack of concern regarding actually sourcing and writing complete and accurate entries. If Peters and I are blocked from editing these articles, so should all of the people involved in this dispute -- admin and non-admin alike. I think the best thing for Wikipedia is a new group of non-Canadian editors work on these pages to make them accurate. Arthur Ellis 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Pete Peters

(Currently blocked, copied from User talk:Pete Peters by Thatcher131)

MY STATEMENT, it is long, but being a primary sunject in this dispute, I believe that it is just to be this long

Hello all Wikipedians!!! Who here would like to nominate me as an Administrator? Okalay Doke.

Let me start off by saying that as a new user, I wasn't too sure how the whole Wiki culture worked. When harsh words were used against me, I fought back with similar words. Which was wrong. Since I had never experienced an exchange between two users before, I thought this was the norm. As I got more involved with Wikipedia, I changed my tone to match the community spirit.

The issue I have is that one person and his anon IPs should not be allowed to dominate the Warren Kinsella or Pierre Bourque (journalist) with a clear POV, and IMO to simply settle a personal dispute. That is the issue, and I have long argued that I would become scarce if Arthur Ellis and his anon IPs would simply stop contributing to the page altogether.

IMO this article was coveted by one individual, who would bully people with opposing view by editors. [11] [12]. Further more, [[User talk:Francs2000|Francs2000] who I had thanked for saving my page from vandalism, became victim of similar attacks by an annon user from Ottawa, and if you read his talk page, you can see the result. (Please note that the comments made against him have been deleted from the record.)

As for accusing Arthur of being a sock of Cereaus, I later stopped that, as it became obvious that Wikipedia Admin would not sanction such behaviour. Thus I did improve my behaviour, and began to move onto other things. (But I now see that everyone else is saying that Arthur is a sock puppet, from a RFCU that had very little evidence.)

If one accuses me of Bad faith regarding the AFD of the Mark Bourrie entry, they may be right in that regards. I did this as a sting operation, my goal was to illustrate the Sock Puppet antics by Ottawa based IPs who would flood the page in an attempt to Keep it. It was gaining steam, until CrazyRussian closed the debate.

You will notice that when the Warren Kinsella or Pierre Bourque entries were not protected, I made little to no edits on those pages. I believed that if Anon IPs wanted modify the page, then let them do the work. But once the page was protected, I stepped in, I reverted the Gomery Inquiry to an anon IPs version, which I thought was better suited. Please read the Gomery Commission entry, which I never mentioned before, because of a suspicion that this page would be possessed by Arthur Ellis. Please read the entry, and note that Warren Kinsella is regarded as an outsider looking in. There is no justification to finger him, when he was never under investigation by the RCMP.

I have always said that I would leave this page altogether, if Arthur Ellis and anon Ottawa based IPs could do the same, to no avail. I was also the victim of attacks, on my user and talk page. This is a must read, [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Okay this goes on, but please read this IPs history, the comments placed next to each edit were harsh to say the least. [23] Most of this, I tried to take in stride, but making a comment about my father is something I take offence too. Especially when I am so proud of my father, who is working on a new mini-hubble liked telescope. Who has been invited by NASA to grade the performance of their new space telescopes. You should also note that after this user was blocked at 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC), Arthur Ellis made a Wikibreak statement soon after at 20:41, 12 July 2006, 9 minutes later. Then disappeared for 6 days, and only reemerged after disputed pages were semi-protected.

Now as for this statement made above by CrazyRussian, "Both editors have a long history of personal attacks, many coming against myself recently." For the record, I have never made a personal attack against CrazyRussian, and I he will confirm that.

And for this satement made by Thatcher131 [24]. I would like a clarification, and his ensurance that he was not referring to me, Pete Peters as being Warren Kinsella himself. I would have no qualms to tesify on Warren Kinsella's behalf that he is not Pete Peters. The same goes for any statement regarding Pierre Bourque being Pete Peters.

And let me be perfectly clear, I have not used anon IPs as socks ever. About a half dozen times or so, I have forgotten to sign in. This by no means merits proof that I use sock puppets. I beg you to do a thorough checkuser investigation, which will ultimately exonerate me of any sock puppet actions. I can understand if there are any suspicions, because I reverted to some anon IP versions. It is just I believed those edits better suited the article.

In regards to CrazyRussian taking sides, I would not dispute this claim made by Arthur Ellis. I believe that I was given a week block by CrazyRussian to save his intregity, which I obliged and do not disagree with. His commendable career with Wikipedia should not be jeopardized over a simple tiff. So I would move him from the category Users who have attempted to defuse the situation to Involved Parties.

However, RadioKirk never took sides, and he should be exonerated from such accusations.

Please feel free to block me, and Arthur Ellis, along with a range block from Magna IP from Ottawa, along with IPs from the National Library of Canada like 142.78.64.223. And please note that I did not tag this page.

Response to CrazyRussian The reason why I do not dispute Arthur's claim is simple. His behaviour was clearly far worse than mine, and thus you were more strict with him. Pete Peters 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Response to Bucketsofg| I don't understand how you can make such statements against me, when you were away for such a long time. Making libelous innuendos that I might be one of the entries in dispute here, leads me to believe that you have ulterior motives behind your statement. Perhaps you should do your homework and read this ANI before making such innuendos. My issue has always been, that one user should not be allowed to dominate one page. (Please see "Hiding the spray paint") My sole purpose wasn't to provoke Arthur Ellis, buddy. I do admit to making one edit on Rachel Marsden entry, as an anon IP, BUT it was before I ever created an account. I have zero interest in the Marsden entry, and I am wondering if you are just trying to kick Arthur Ellis when he is down all the while taking shots at me. I have never used any socks, I have never colluded with any anon IP to be my meatpuppet, I think collusion requires premeditiation. So please do your homework before making any accusations.Pete Peters 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by CJCurrie

I apologize for my belated arrival to this discussion. I have little to add regarding the accusations of Arthur Ellis and Sockpuppetry, and I've played only a minor role in the content dispute on the Kinsella page. I can vouch for the fact that Arthur Ellis has acted in a disruptive manner on the page, has made several politically charged edits directed against Mr. Kinsella, and has engaged in edit-warring with Pete Peters on several pages. Regardless of whether or not he is Mark Bourrie, he appears to be extending Bourrie's feud with Kinsella into our Wikispace. I encourage the ArbComm to take up this request, and investigate the matter further. CJCurrie 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Response by Arthur Ellis

Again, as I have done so often, I simply ask people to look at the edits and read the discussion page and to discuss the issues I raised, rather than simply dismiss my work as "disruptive". Yes, some of the edits were politically-charged. This is an entry about a guy who calls himself "The Prince of Darkness" in Canadian politics and wrote a book called "Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics". It is also unfair that my work is constantly tagged to one outed former Wikipedia editor. It would be interesting if we knew everyone's name and background, and knew what baggage they brought to the argument.

In summary, there is not a single fact that I placed in the entry that is under dispute. Not one. Basically, I believe these people, editors and admins included, have botched the entry, been unable to carry on a factual debate, have resorted to outing, reversion and edit warring, and, failing in those things, have asked for your help. Arthur Ellis 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

Accept. Dmcdevit·t 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Recuse. - SimonP 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept. James F. (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept Fred Bauder 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Wikipedia is not a battleground

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

Passed 7-0 at 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons

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

Passed 7-0 at 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping our eye on the ball

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

Passed 7-0 at 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing your own article

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

Passed 7-0 at 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock and meat puppets

5) A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.

Passed 7-0 at 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of Fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is editing of the articles concerning Warren Kinsella and other figures prominent in the Canadian political blogosphere. There is some evidence that the principals in this matter are themselves participants in the Canadian political blogosphere, especially Mark Bourrie. The dispute between these two gentlemen involved legal actions concerning alleged libel [25].