Case Opened on 01:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 16:21, 28 November 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.

Involved parties[edit]

Rachel_Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bucketsofg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Bearcat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Ianking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Geedubber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Mediation was turned down by user:Bearcat and user:Bucketsofg

Statement by Arthur Ellis[edit]

Admins Bearcat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bucketsofg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have POV in this matter. They have protected poorly sourced, probably libelous article at Rachel Marsden despite warning from Jimbo Wales. The article relies on selective news coverage and a report by the Fraser Institute to smear a Canadian newspaper columnist. Bucketsofg has a long-running campaign on and off wikipedia against anyone connected with Germant Grewal, a former Canadian MP, and operates the Bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com web page. Bucketsofg and Bearcat have illegally blocked me under the 3RR, forcing me to use sockpuppet craileithian (now banned) and this uder name to make my case, despite the fact wikipedia policy on bios of living persons expressly forbids blocks under 3RR for removal of salacious and potentially libelous material. The talk page also contains discussions by Bearcat and others that mock the bio subject (see the section where they discuss her "marriage". Marsden was found guilty once of criminal harassment. 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. 64.26.147.246 21:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Other than the first line in Bucketsofg's post, there's nothing but usual fantasy regarding IPs. As usual, he does not address issues in the article, but relies on smear. For a really interesting read, go back to last March, when Mark Bourrie/Ceraurus first complained of this article and fought like hell to take out outrageous stuff like trying to link Rachel Marsden to a teacher who had lost his license (supposedly her father). Basically, Bearcat, Geedubber, Homey (now RIP), and Bucketsofg, (not then a moderator) drove Bourrie, who was new to Wikipedia and who had naively registered under his own name and shared details about himself, over to the dark side of 3RR and sock puppetry. I believe that started because he tried to go anyonymous, but was constantly outed. I did not write the present article. I tried to soften, as best I could, the salacious entry, over the hue and cry of most of the listed parties. Unfortunately, this was the best I could get. Please note, too, that Bucketsofg has meddled with this page to remove evidence and arguments. He has done the same with the Rachel Marsden talk page. The article is sourced to the eyeballs, but the sources tend to be retracted stories, a selective culling of news articles, a Fraser Institute report written by a Simon Fraser faculty member (hardly a disinterested party writing to peer review or even journalistic standards), and a magazine piece written by a competitor. Keep in mind that none of the allegations, except the one regarding Morgan, ever saw the inside of a court of law. They are unproven allegations, most now more than ten years old. We need to know what Bucketsofg's obsession is, and why so many Vancouver-based Canadian admins and editors fight so hard for this terrible article and ignore criticism from Wales, among others. And talking of double standards, the Western Standard that Bucketsofg relies on for sourcing the Marsden entry is the same Western Standard he mocks on his blog: http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com. What you are seeing is a continuing pattern of abuse by Canadian editors. Homey has been properly dealt with. It is difficult for many Wikipedia admins to understand the arcane world of Canadian politics. Bourrie/Ceraurus, who has a PhD in this stuff, was driven off by Canadian leftist editors and admins after they effectively drove him up the wall. 64.230.105.111 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Sept. 22, Bucketsofg wrote this on the Mark Bourrie talk page: "This is most disturbing. Bourrie and I have had our moments, but whoever is doing this should stop..." Then, the next day, he edited the page. Not a big deal, but it speaks to the issue of Bucketsofg's POV and bias.Arthur Ellis 17:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rachel Marsden[edit]

I am the real Rachel Marsden, about whom this article has been written. I received an email today directing me to this "arbitration" link, and I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in. I contacted Jimbo Wales over a year ago regarding this article, at which point he weighed in on Wikipedia and appeared to agree that it was outlandishly slanderous. Since that time, the same parties have been obsessively altering this article to the point that it has become ridiculous. The user by the name of "Bucketsofg" has a blog called "Buckets of Grewal", and has been obsessed with a previous political client of mine (Gurmant Grewal) and everything related to Grewal. His Wikipedia account "history" page attests to this fact. The few other users who have maintained my Wikipedia "bio" in the slanderous manner to which it has become accustomed, have cited their own "original" research, or have cited news articles which have long since been retracted by those sources. This Wikipedia article relies on Fraser Institute material which was put together to make an anti-feminist, anti-sexual harassment system case, and written by an SFU prof who is connected with Liam Donnelly and has professor friends who were found guilty through the anti-harassment tribunal. The only other actual item on which the article relies is a Western Standard piece, which has a hate-on for me inspired by competitive jealousy (I am a conservative columnist in direct competition with them). I note that another Wikipedia user has posted these retractions on the article's "discussion" page. I believe that I am a fair-minded, reasonable individual, yet have been subject to this persistent libel on Wikipedia for well over a year. I have noted that fair-minded people have attempted to impart some fairness and legitimacy to this article for more than a year, but have been met with blocks from Canadian editors, many of whom live in Vancouver and may well be either SFU staff/alumni and/or political enemies of Grewal and/or friends and associates of Liam Donnelly. I appreciate the fact that someone at Wikipedia has created this "arbitration" section, as it gives people like myself an opportunity to air our concerns. Given the circumstances and the length of time this has been going on, I kindly request that this article about me be removed and, in the future, should another article be created about me, that the contributors stick to the documented facts about my career and life. While the salacious details of my personal life might be interesting to a choice few contributors, I'm afraid they're inaccurate and, as such, detract from the credibility that I would think Wikipedia is attempting to establish. Sincerely, Rachel Marsden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelMarsden (talk • contribs)

Comment by Bearcat[edit]

Starting with Arthur Ellis' allegations in his statement here, of the four edit blocks that have been applied to him in the past seven weeks, not a single one was applied by either me or Bucketsofg. And as for BLP, what AE is forgetting (or choosing to ignore) is that it specifically precludes the removal of properly documented material, meaning that his reversions did not qualify for any exemption from 3RR. And nobody "mocked her marriage" anywhere on the talk page; the only matter discussed was whether an acceptable media source could be provided to confirm that she had gotten married. (And to this day, a media source still hasn't been provided, I might add.) And furthermore, neither Bucketsofg nor I have at any time ever made a single negative comment about Marsden on the talk page — except for one mildly sarcastic dismissal of a personal attack against WP editors by an anon who was almost certainly Ellis or Marsden, there isn't a single comment posted by either Buckets or myself to that talk page which deals with anything other than policy qua policy.

There are no grounds here to even consider mediation or arbitration. As has been repeatedly pointed out to Arthur Ellis, the BLP policy that he cites in defense of his position specifically states that if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Jimbo's comment was about a significantly different version of the article over six months ago, and cannot be taken as applicable to the heavily revised article as it currently stands; I've seen at least a dozen uninvolved editors review the article and conclude that it was one of the most carefully and thoroughly source-documented articles they had ever seen on WP. In fact, the last editor to review it on the BLP noticeboard found one source link that was even remotely problematic, and that was a link which isn't even part of the dispute here.

And both Ellis and Marsden really seem to love alleging that I have an unacceptable bias in the matter (as if they themselves didn't), even though I have never made a single edit to this article that in any way involved my own personal opinions; as an administrator, my only interest in the article is in ensuring that Wikipedia policy is correctly followed. BLP is not contravened by including the disputed material, because it's an incontrovertible, well-documented and legitimately notable fact of Marsden's life that the accusations in question were made; the article as written simply documents that reality and does not insinuate anything further than that. Whereas Ellis and Marsden have repeatedly contravened vandalism, verifiability, 3RR, autobiography and sockpuppet policies, and applied a selective, incorrect and highly self-serving reading of BLP in their crusade to remove it.

The bottom line is that Ellis and Marsden are the only people contravening Wikipedia policy here, and I'm frankly quite uninterested in taking part in any process designed to undermine Wikipedia policies by giving article subjects the right to control what Wikipedia can or cannot write about them. This complaint has no basis in Wikipedia policy; it's based entirely in Marsden's desire to sweep an inconvenient part of her past under the rug for public relations purposes despite the fact that the policy being cited specifically says that properly documented material cannot be removed from an article just because the subject doesn't like it being there.

As far as I'm concerned, any continuation of this process is giving off the undesirable message that Wikipedia policy can be overturned or ignored at will, and basically rewards Ellis and Marsden for being disruptive. Bearcat 22:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Geedubber[edit]

I haven't really edited the article for 2 months now so I don't know why I was listed as a party in this dispute. The article is properly sourced so I do not see what the beef is. I would have to agree with Bearcat's argument that Arthur Ellis is simply misinterpreting BLP policy. I would urge the arbitrators to decline this request as this just another example of Arthur Ellis trying to skirt around Wikipedia policy and trying to impose his own POV on articles. Geedubber 00:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Bucketsofg[edit]

I encourage anyone to go over to the Rachel Marsden entry, and if they find anything unencyclopedic, unsourced, or poorly sourced, to improve it or remove it, as indeed they should in any article.

In the meantime, members of the Arbitration Committee will remember having just banned Arthur Ellis (aka Ceraurus, Mark Bourrie, etc., etc.), among other things for having engaged in abusive sock-puppetry and disruption in articles about himself, Warren Kinsella (his bête noire), Pierre Bourque (a friend of Kinsella's), and Rachel Marsden (a friend of Bourrie/Ellis). They may not recall, however, that in his evidence in that arbitration Ellis claimed to have written current version of Rachel Marsden, which is not greatly different from its current state (see diff here). Indeed, I complimented him for his contribution at the time (here; his response at the time (here) gave no hint at dissatisfaction.

Why, then, the current complaint, which so clearly misinterprets the BLP? Why his erroneous accusation that I blocked him for using the sock-puppet Craigleithian to break 3RR (I've never blocked him, see my block log)? Why the strange assertion that I somehow 'forced' him to use that sock, which in any case was a sleeper account that he created months ago? Why did he use anonymous IPs to leave these little turds on my talk page yesterday and today: "You are one obsessive prick. And I know who you are." and then "You are academically and intellectually dishonest. This dishonesty will soon be made known to your peers"? On May 20, one of Ellis/Bourrie's socks, having been blocked for personal attacks and vandalism of this same sort, wrote: "Fuck you. My IP changes every six hours. I'll be back. I will cause as much Wikipedia trouble as I can!". Ellis/Bourrie's arbitration request is merely another way to disrupt: a thrown together pastiche of half-truths and error, supported by not a single diff, that is merely fulfilling his promise to cause as much trouble as he can.

In light of this, I recommend that the Arbitration Committee reject the request, not least because it thought it was banning him from the Rachel Marsden article when it ruled (so one arbitrator here). Since it is clear that Ellis intends to return to this entry once his current block passes, the arbitrators may want to clarify their decision as they vote on whether to accept or reject this case. Bucketsofg✐ 02:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by User:Konstable[edit]

As the blocking administrator who put this "illegal" block on Arthur, I feel like I should say something, although Arthur has failed to mention me for some reason. Though I'm not mentioned here I am the administrator whose block is currently active on Arthur Ellis, I'm not sure why Arthur is accusing the others of this "illegal block". I have not read the full article myself, but I have looked through Arthur's reverts reported on WP:AN/3RR and it seemed like he was reverting sourced material that several other users wanted to be kept, and not only that, but abusing sockpuppets to avoid being blocked for 3RR. If you add his previous threee blocks for 3RR violation to the equation, this just threw the whole image of good faith out the window for me. I still have not read the article in full, nor reviewed the case futher - because instead of trying to contact me to discuss the matter either by email or on his talk page, Arthur had used more socks to file an arbitration case (I believe it was reverted 2 times before). I will not give the block another thought right now as I really have big time problems in real life right now and it seems there is already enough attention on the matter. But if any other administrator feels that Arthur is right in his claim that this block is not a violation of 3RR per WP:BLP - feel free to unblock him, I will not oppose you if that's what you think (note the arbitration ruling banning him from editing that page was not yet in action at the time as I remember).--Konstable 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An amendment and clarification: My appologies, upon a second look it does seem that I did say some things here which can be a bit obscure, I was rather in a hurry then (note: "big time problems" = not "BIG-TIME problems" but "BIG time-limitation-problems", and this was at the time of the RfAr statement, NOT the block). I believe this carelessness to proofread what I wrote lead to Arthur's mis-understanding on the evidence page, so I will clarify. (The comment itself has been up for a while so I will not change it beyond what I need to - the only change is that I put in an underlined "full" above). I have looked through Arthur's changes, but not the full article. There were cited sources, their reliability is questioned here perhaps that was a mistake of me not to look through them myself in greater detail, but Arthur has never pointed this out to me, he never made an attempt to contact me to discuss the block. I do appologize if it was an erroneous block, but there were other mentioned circumstances (sock abuse to avoid block, previous history of 3RR, working against well-established users) which did make me lose all good faith in him.--Konstable 08:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept Fred Bauder 19:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept. Most worrying. James F. (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept. This issue does not look like it is going to get solved any other way. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

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

Principles[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."