Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Thatcher131

[edit] Checkuser vandalism

On 27 June, User:Pete Peters filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus alleging that Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) was a sock puppet/reincarnation of Ceraurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). If true, this would mean that Arthur Ellis is also Mark Bourrie, and therefore that Mark Bourrie had been editing Mark Bourrie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) in violation of WP:OWN and WP:AUTO, and negatively editing Warren Kinsella (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), with whom Bourrie has a longstanding real-world dispute.

On July 2, the request was answered Inconclusive, probably because Ceraurus' most recent edits were too old at that time.

Arthur Ellis began reacting as if he had been completely exonerated. He bragged about the result.

Several IP users began removing sock puppet tags from other IP addresses suspected of having been used by Ellis. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

On July 5, Warren Kinsella posted a comment on his blog to the effect that Arthur Ellis was really Mark Bourrie, giving links to the Ceraurus checkuer page and User:70.51.52.253, which contained an Ellis/Ceraurus sockpuppet tag. In retaliation, several IP addresses began blanking User:70.51.52.253, User talk:70.51.52.253 and the checkuser page and replacing the content with statements like "Warren Kinsella is a psychopath" (the worst statement, which I no longer recall specifically, was made repeatedly on User:70.51.52.253, which was then deleted by King of Hearts. The history is available to the comittee of course).

Note that on July 20, Ceraurus edited his talk page, allowing a confirmation that Arthur Ellis was Likely a sockpuppet of Ceraurus/Mark Bourrie (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis).

[edit] Request for checkuser

A large number of IP addresses is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis, which edit from Ellis' ISP in a characteristic Ellis-like manner, including the vandal IPs listed above. Mackensen deferred the checkuser request to Arbcom pending the opening of this case. Due to the time it took to open the case, some of the relevant log data may be in danger. Recommend that the arbitrators run any checks needed for this case ASAP.

[edit] Evidence presented by {Arthur Ellis}

[edit] First assertion

There's nothing more to say other than what I've already written:

No effort was made at mediation or any other dispute resolution. Two admins, CrazyRussian, who 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, Bucketsofg, who does not admit bias, but should, have been involved in this dispute. A simple examination of the Kinsella article's history page 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 and July 8 -- 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. 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 and immediately began vandalizing the Mark Bourrie 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), Homey. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. No one has challenged the facts I have posted on any of the entries under dispute. Not once. This is now about who they think I am. And that is none of their business, quite frankly. Even if I am Mark Bourrie, Wikipedia allows me to edit that entry. But I am not interested in entering into some kind of sock puppetry debate or indulge Bucketsofg his James Bond fantasy. He seems to have no problem with Pete Peters trollimg.Arthur Ellis 20:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second assertion

All the stuff about IP addresses is lost on me. When people actually discuss the Warren Kinella entry edits, do let me know. They know they have no case in that regard and are acting accordingly.


[edit] Third Assertion

Ottawa is a city of one million people. Sympatico, and whoever it contracts to (which are owned by Bell) probably has at least 50 per cent of the IP market. Ottawa also has, as capital of Canada, a relatively large number of people with knowledge of, and opinions about, Warren Kinsella. Bucketsofg, a known obsessive anonymous crank in Canada, attempts to tag me with the sins of an entire city. I suppose that's easier than actually coming to grips with my edits, which is what, I'm told, this arbitration is about.Arthur Ellis 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Pete Peters

[edit] First assertion: Consensus was never achieved, Arthur Ellis bullied other editors.

There is this assertion by Arthur Ellis that he was part of a consensus built version. This is not true, this so called consensus occurred between the 1st and 2nd of July 2006. Seven of His first seires of edits on this day was to portray Warren Kinsella in a bad light, and make Mark Bourrie look good.[16] The MAIN editors invloved during this time, User:Arthur Ellis, User:HistoryBA, and User: Geedubber. The Consensus time frame can be agreed upon by his own Statement here on July 2, 2006.[17] However, after I challenged him on his claim of Consensus[18], he later retorted that three editors (User:Pete Peters,User:geedubber, and User:HistoryBA) were "taking out material that, unfortunately, was not good PR for Kinsella." [19]


So to conclude, his consensus assertion is false. He even used abusive language to other the two main editors during this time. [20] [21] [22]

[edit] Second assertion: User Arthur Ellis demonstrates a clear POV in his edits

User Arthur Ellis demonstrates a clear POV in his edits. His first edit on the Pierre Bourque entry was to revert back to the edits done by anon IPs from Ottawa.[23] This edit[24] is even more evidence that Arthur Ellis has a POV in editing. It should be noted that Mark Bourrie has a personal one-way grudge with Pierre Bourque, since Pierre Bourque deleted his link off of the Bourque Newswatch page. The Bourque Report is the Canadian Equivilent to the Drudge Report, and it should be noted that Pierre and Warren are good friends.

[edit] Third assertion

[edit] Evidence presented by Bucketsofg

[edit] First Assertion: rampant sock/meat-puppetry

[edit] The IPs

[edit] The Magma IPs (nos. 1-43)

Many reversions, disruptions, and attacks in these pages come from IPs resolving to Magma Communications, an Ottawa ISP owned by Primus, a discount phone company operating as a CLEC in Canada. Because this is a small ISP in a smallish market, and the entries being reverted are obscure even within Canada, these IPs probably represent one or two individuals who have learnt, as one of them (209.217.96.48 = no. 15) boasted, to "bend over, unplug my modem, wait thirty seconds, plug it in again, and get an new IP number."[25] Here is a list of Magma IPs that have edited these pages since June 28, together with their dates.

  1. 209.217.124.177 (talk · contribs · block log) (6/28/06 22:07 to 6/29/06 11:52)
  2. 209.217.124.17 (talk · contribs · block log) (6/30/06 11:14 to 6/30/06 11:45)
  3. 64.26.167.71 (talk · contribs · block log) (6/30/06 21:38 to 6/30/06 23:19)
  4. 209.217.123.126 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/2/06 11:07 to 7/2/06 11:33)
  5. 64.26.148.251 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/4/06 2:16 to 7/4/06 3:11)
  6. 64.26.170.44 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/4/06 21:41 to 7/4/06 22:38)
  7. 209.217.93.40 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/5/06 10:56 to 7/5/06 11:35)
  8. 206.191.39.221 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/5/06 18:29 to 7/5/06 18:29)
  9. 206.191.56.34 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/5/06 21:17 to 7/6/06 2:40)
  10. 209.217.110.91 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/6/06 14:23 to 7/6/06 14:44)
  11. 209.217.96.169 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/6/06 16:59 to 7/6/06 17:02)
  12. 209.217.123.54 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/6/06 17:25 to 7/6/06 17:27)
  13. 209.217.75.14 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/6/06 18:47 to 7/6/06 18:58)
  14. 209.217.123.36 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/6/06 19:03 to 7/6/06 19:09)
  15. 209.217.96.48 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/6/06 19:23 to 7/6/06 19:46)
  16. 64.26.147.188 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/6/06 22:31 to 7/7/06 12:05)
  17. 209.217.93.12 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/7/06 15:22 to 7/7/06 16:18)
  18. 64.26.170.69 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/10/06 21:17 to 7/11/06 10:55)
  19. 209.217.124.37 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/11/06 18:48 to 7/11/06 21:01)
  20. 209.217.75.250 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/11/06 23:47 to 7/11/06 23:50)
  21. 209.217.110.241 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/12/06 12:20 to 7/12/06 12:27)
  22. 206.191.56.115 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/12/06 20:03 to 7/12/06 20:33)
  23. 209.217.110.69 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/13/06 2:05 to 7/13/06 12:50)
  24. 209.217.66.150 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/13/06 18:00 to 7/13/06 20:24)
  25. 209.217.84.98 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/13/06 23:16 to 7/14/06 4:07)
  26. 209.217.110.236 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/14/06 12:19 to 7/14/06 12:19)
  27. 206.191.33.99 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/14/06 16:56 to 7/14/06 17:14)
  28. 206.191.33.161 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/14/06 20:53 to 7/15/06 14:48)
  29. 209.217.83.31 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/16/06 2:32 to 7/16/06 12:18)
  30. 209.217.99.125 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/16/06 21:21 to 7/17/06 1:21)
  31. 209.217.79.147 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/17/06 3:19 to 7/17/06 17:18)
  32. 209.217.66.179 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/17/06 21:05 to 7/18/06 12:19)
  33. 209.217.93.60 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/18/06 13:05 to 7/18/06 16:04)
  34. 209.217.119.12 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/19/06 1:39 to 7/19/06 6:48)
  35. 209.217.123.92 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/19/06 11:49 to 7/19/06 12:57)
  36. 64.26.148.240 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/19/06 14:26 to 7/19/06 14:49)
  37. 64.26.147.136 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/19/06 16:04 to 7/19/06 23:40)
  38. 64.26.170.156 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/20/06 4:00 to 7/20/06 04:01)
  39. 209.217.96.46 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/20/06 16:10 to 7/20/06 16:21)
  40. 209.217.124.126 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/20/06 22:07 to 7/20/06 22:09)
  41. 64.26.147.24 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/21/06 12:36 to 7/21/06 12:43)
  42. 209.217.99.141 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/21/06 19:09 to 7/21/06 20:14)
  43. 209.217.75.77 (talk · contribs · block log) (7/22/06 1:10 to 7/22/06 14:18)

Especially noteworthy is the fact that these IPs are in a series: each IP stops before the next one starts. Sometimes, the new IP appears only minutes after the last one disappears. Note the series no. 11 (209.217.96.169) = no. 12 (209.217.123.54) = no. 13 (209.217.75.14) = no. 14 (209.217.123.36) = no. 15 (209.217.96.48), whose boast of his ability to get a new IP number was mentioned above. This implies that these IPs are under the control either of a single individual or of a group who are closely co-ordinating their efforts.

[edit] Static IPs

There are several static IPs that have editted mostly to these pages and work with the IPs listed above, which again implies either a single puppet-master or a co-ordinated group effort. The relevant static IPs are:

  • cf. no. 19 (209.217.124.37), whose edit on the main page comes right before this no. 44's explanation on the talk page here.
  • cf. no. 20 (209.217.75.250), who reverts (here) to this IP's personal attack calling Pete Peters "a lying douchebag"
  • Removes Bourrie's name from sock-puppet template here
  • Joins the adolescent vandalization of no. 22 (206.191.56.115) here and here

[edit] Named Accounts

[edit] Mark Bourrie (talk · contribs · block log)/Ceraurus (talk · contribs · block log)

Some of the Magma IPs are clearly User:Mark Bourrie/User:Ceraurus

  • no. 16 (64.26.147.188) speaks of himself as Bourrie here and here
  • no. 26 (209.217.110.236) is Bourrie (see [27]; cf. here)
  • no. 35 (209.217.123.92) blanks Ceraurus' user page ([28], [29], [30]); 20 minutes after the page is semi-protected, Ceraurus signs in to archive it cutting here
  • no. 36 (64.26.148.240) pastes here what Ceraurus (who as a blocked user was unable to edit this page) had just cut, carefully removing any occurence of the name "Mark Bourrie": see this diff, which compares the pasted version to the last version on Cerarus' page. (No. 36 also claims to have signed a National Post author's contract here (as Bourrie will have done as an NP author) and to have written on Canadian copyright law in legal journals (as Bourrie has done)).

[edit] Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · block log)
  • Arthur Ellis' first edit was to complain about the length of Ceraurus/Bourrie's ban; he's also blanked Ceraurus' page with the summary [31] (cf. [32], [33])
  • Arthur Ellis admits to using socks & meats in his statement to ArbComm (para 3): "I did use some IPs as socks in this dispute, but I was not the only one."
  • Some of the IPs he's used are easy to identify:
    • no. 3 (64.26.167.71) [34] (cf. edit summary here and edit here.)
    • no. 5 (64.26.148.251) [35], [36]
    • no. 42 (209.217.99.141) edits Arthur Ellis' ArbComm statement [37]
    • no. 43 (209.217.75.77) edits Arthur Ellis' ArbComm statement [38]
  • After a Checkuser came back inconclusive, Arthur Ellis re-added a sock-puppet tag on User:70.25.91.205 (an IP that Bourrie/Ceraurus used to use) with the edit summary: "This is a confirmed sock puppet. I have been removing tags where allegation is false" [39]. He made no such reversions as Arthur Elllis. Several IPs did, however, remove such tags that day:

[edit] Marie Tessier (talk · contribs · block log)

[edit] Evidence of sock-puppetry

This Checkuser suggest Marie Tessier and Mark Bourrie/Ceraurus and Arthur Ellis are "likely" identical with one another. In addition to this, one might note that the account created under name User:Marie Tessier was at 22:21, 12 July 2006; Arthur Ellis announced he was leaving wikipedia "forever" at 20:45, 12 July 2006.

Marie admits to being a "friend" of Arthur Ellis here; she claims to have spent youth in Midland, Ontario here, as did Bourrie [50]

Finally, there are the boasts of sock-puppetry (see above) and certain stylistic similaries among these various users.

[edit] Edit summaries

The various users listed above occasionally display idiosyncracies in the way they provide edit summaries that should be noted.

[edit] Second Assertion: sock/meat-puppets used to circumvent 3RR

There are a variety of ways in which these socks and meats have violated the rules. First, and most commonly, by using them to give them the upper hand in reversion wars. Here are two examples (from many possible):

  • Revert-war of June 28-July 1 begun by no. 1 (209.217.124.177): 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, continued by no. 44 (64.230.36.153) (4RR and 5RR), then by Arthur Ellis (6RR, 7RR and 8RR); then by no. 2 (209.217.124.17): 10RR 11RR; then no. 44 (64.230.36.153) (again): 12RR, and Arthur Ellis (again) 13RR 14RR 15RR 16RR
  • etc., etc.

[edit] Third Assertion: sock/meat-puppets used for vote-stacking

Socks/meats have been used to try to stack votes in at least two recent cases. On July 10, Arthus Ellis nominated two articles related to the Kinsella article for deletition:

[edit] Fourth Assertion: sock/meat-puppets used for personal attacks and harassment

Many wikipedia editors have been attacked and harassed by these socks.

This last set of reversions shows that these efforts were no longer about a content dispute on a few pages--many of the edits that were being undone added worthwhile content (e.g., here).

[edit] Fifth Assertion: sock/meat-puppets used for trolling & disruption

Such edits as these are not about gaining ground in a content dispute. Rather, the point is to disrupt. That this is one of the goals is made in one of this editor's first posts from a Magma IP. After having been blocked for vandalism, he responded:

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

[edit] Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.