User talk:Arthur Ellis

Arthur Ellis talk page

Rachel Marsden

Something you're doing in your edits is causing the reference formatting to screw up; instead of listing properly, every reference after #6 is running together as an undifferentiated and unformatted block of text. I can't locate where the problem is, however — could you please stop editing the footnotes until we can solve the matter? Thanks. Bearcat 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know what the problem is. Mostly, I just wanted to tighten and copy-edit.Arthur Ellis 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get an administrator with more experience in the technical coding aspects to review what was happening, but in the meantime I'll have to revert the changes so that the reference list goes back to its proper code formatting. I'm not expressing an opinion on the quality of your edits, I hasten to add; this is strictly a technical matter. Bearcat 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an easy fix. I took out FN 6, which was of a non-controversial point (no one claims she doesn't write for the Toornto Sun, I hope). Now the footnotes work and I've copy-edited the piece.Arthur Ellis 01:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Green Party of Canada

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Ardenn 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim Harris didn't resign as leader, he only announced that he wouldn't run again. Thus he is still leader until after the convention is over, and they "change over." Ardenn 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Arthur Ellis, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ardenn 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation question

You left a message on the Medcab case page concerning Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 Battle of the Lower Dnieper stating, I would mediate this one if parties are agreeable. Arthur Ellis 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC). Does this mean that you will attempt to mediate the case? I put it in the cases in mediation section, but I just wanted to be sure someone was looking into the matter. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for your responce at Talk:Battle_of_the_Lower_Dnieper#Mediation. Please show up also at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25_Battle_of_the_Lower_Dnieper#Mediator_response.--AndriyK 09:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Battle of the Lower Dnieper

I certainly have no objections if you mediate this case. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User: HistoryBA

Your unsubstantiated personal attacks against me are inappropriate and a clear violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. I would ask you please to think twice in the future before making comments that are harmful to the community spirit of this venture. HistoryBA 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have taken you to task for errors you have made. Others have, too. Check your own talk page, and please be more careful.Arthur Ellis

We all make errors, even you. When I make an error, I am happy if someone points out exactly what I did wrong. If I believe I am not in error, I will justify my edit. If I am wrong, I will admit my mistake. You, however, have alleged errors without having the courtesy to specifically say which edits were wrong. It seems to me that this violates the spirit of goodwill that characterizes this enterprise. HistoryBA 13:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made personal attacks against you. I've said you have edited errors into a number of Wikipedia pages. You place unsourced material, draw conclusions, extrapolate and make other mistakes that, I've found, are fairly frequent and require correcting.

Saying so is not an attack on you as a person. You may well be a kind, loving, wonderful, bright person. I don't know. I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt. However, you need to be more careful with what you put into Wikipedia entries. Arthur Ellis 13:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't respond to anything I said in my previous set of comments here (the comments that began with with "We all make errors, even you"). Again, I don't think your allegations are appropriate given the cooperative spirit of this venture, especially when you make it clear that you are unwilling to substantiate them. HistoryBA 15:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have substantiated them, over and over and over. Look at the Mark Bourrie and the military history discussion page. Look at the comments on your own talk page. I'm just tired of repeating myself. Yes, this is a co-operative venture, but that doen't mean other editors must continually clean up after your mistakes. Arthur Ellis 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not once have you cited a specific edit to an article; you just keep repeating that I should look at Bourrie's accusations, which are also unsubstantiated (and, as I have pointed out many times now, misquote me). As I have said before, there is no need to repeat yourself; simply say something new. For example, you give me the date and time of some of the many edits where you believe I have made mistakes. Its hard for me to believe that this isn't personal, when you won't cite any specific edits. HistoryBA 12:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I have reviewed the Military history of Canada edit history and cannot find a single case of you correcting one of my edits. In the course of reviewing that page and others that I have edited, I came across a few errors that you made, but they are certainly nothing worth lecturing you about. We all make mistakes, and it is always better to correct others in a polite and helpful way, rather than making snide comments. HistoryBA 13:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pete Peters

I don't think it's reached the level of vandalism yet, take it to Dispute Resolution. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. (for 24 hours) - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• When you return, please edit responsibly. Work out your differences with Pete on the talk page, call in reinforcements from WP:3O - just stop the war. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation removal

Due to your recent block for violating WP:3rr, I have put the case you volunteered to mediate back into the section requesting it is looked at by other mediators. You are more than welcome to come back to mediate in the cabal in the future, but at the moment I feel that perhaps your unfamiliarity with policy and your newness to Wikipedia could possibly lead to problems at this time. I ask that you get a bit more experience before jumping into mediation with the Mediation Cabal just yet. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit rough. The issue turned on the meaning of a single word. I was blocked for reverting vandalism and blanking. Quite the brain trust, people.Arthur Ellis Pete Peters 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked for conducting an edit war and hurting our encyclopedic goals. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you do still have enthusiasm to mediate, you are more than welcome to, but you may want to consider asking another mediator to look over your progress to make sure things go smoothly. It's just that lately the Medcab has undergone quite a bit of trouble with newer mediators, but I don't wish to discourage you. I can't stop you from mediating, as it's an informal process, but what I mean to say is that you may want to get a bit more familiar with policy first (your addition of the protected tag to a page that was not protected, for example). Sorry for sounding harsh. Cowman109^Talk 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not think any other worst person than Arthur Ellis aka Mark Bourie to settle disputes. I am afraid if he get's any power in Wiki, he well abuse it. He has been put on indefinite ban with his old account. He has been caught in the past of sock pupeteering, I beg everyone to be aware of this guy.

Pete Peters 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Declaring a user a sockpuppet without checkuser evidence could be interpreted as an attack, Pete, so please do not attempt to defame other users for unproven claims. Doing so will not help anyone. As the old saying goes, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay my beef with im is over.

Pete Peters 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Pierre Bourque (journalist)

I have reverted your changes to this talk page. Please do not remove others comments from it again. As for the large additions you made, please keep your comments brief and to the point. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The article needed to be posted because the reference kept being deleted from the article by vandal IP. Arthur Ellis 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did that information come from, is there a link? -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's now on the article page, but [Pete Peters] kept taking it off and it is always reverted by vandals, probably Pierre Bourque. Check the contributions of the latest IP vandalizing the page. It is all Pierre Bourque. I wanted users in the future to be able to find the Ryerson review article.Arthur Ellis 22:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I took it off once, Arthur. Then I said, fine keep it, as long as you don't erase my comments. But you erased my comments anyway.Pete Peters 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sophie Galarneau

Please stop making personal attacks against me or any other editors. a site called kinsellasux is clearly biased. any info from that site should be questioned. how do I know that the article is printed verbatim? what is left in the article now is not misleading, all it says now is "Kinsella gained national exposure during the 2000 federal election when he appeared on television brandishing a toy Barney dinosaur to highlight Stockwell Day's creationist beliefs." which is true. I have done nothing dishonest. I have done nothing wrong. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, because you never ever do and constantly make personal attacks against editors you do not agree with. just find a direct link to the Paul Wells article. Geedubber 00:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You have done something very dishonest. Kinsella is often credited for the Barney stunt. Wikipedia can set the record straight. You know very well the Paul Wells column is reprinted verbatim. As I said, you should be ashamed for putting deliberately misleading information into the entry and taking out something that can set the record straight. Arthur Ellis 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

dude, i do not know it is printed verbatim. the article as it is now does not credit him with thinking up the stunt. just find a better link, and stay away from my talk page. Geedubber 00:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis, once two editors have warned you about your inappropriate behaviour on your talk page (as has now occurred), I can seek some sort of sanction against you. I would rather not do so. It would be much better if you would simply stop attacking others, assume good faith, and act in a cooperative manner. HistoryBA 00:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Really. That's rich for someone who follows around my edits, screws them up, and cries "personal attack" when I use facts to critise her work (as have so many others; see her talk page)Arthur Ellis 00:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis, you could save us all a lot of time and effort if you would just respect the spirit of this place. HistoryBA 00:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want you to get things right. It is not the "spirit" of Wikipedia to take good material out, and add bad material into entries, as you so often do. This work should be done with care. It's an encyclopedia, after all. Read your talk page.Arthur Ellis 00:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be nasty to get things right. The spirit of Wikipedia is to work cooperatively toward a better product, not to insult anyone who one believes has made an error. I can cite the Wikipedia policy if you don't believe me. HistoryBA 00:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The words "better product" are important to that statement. I am not insulting you as a person. I am telling you that you make a lot of errors, as your talk page shows. I'm sure you are a delightful person, but you make these errors. Arthur Ellis 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sentences that start with "you have done something very dishonest" clearly violate the Wikipedia standard of conduct, as do many of your other contributions to the talk pages. Saying that you have had to correct many of my errors on the miltitary history of Canada page (to cite just one example of your slurs), and then not retracting that remark when I told you that it was untrue, is simply uncivil. I am asking you to please, please, assume good faith and work together with the rest of us, rather than insulting us and making unsubstantiated accusations. HistoryBA 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more productive to try explaining historical scholarship to my cat than it is to try to explain it to you. Please wuit baiting me and take your friends with you. Again, read your own talk page.Arthur Ellis 02:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking you to behave in a civil manner is not baiting you. Calling me "think as a plank" is inappropriate. HistoryBA

Maybe "brick" would be more accurate. Now please go away.Arthur Ellis 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of "going away" until: (1) you agree to act in a civil way, (2) you voluntarily leave Wikipedia, or (3) you are banned from Wikipedia. My preference is for number 1, but my experience with editors like you is that they generally get nastier and nastier until they are banned. In any case, the choice isn't mine, it's yours. HistoryBA 15:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are so kind to give me such empowerment. Thank you so much. Arthur Ellis 21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

I see you are still in a feud with Pete Peters. Continuing this is pointless and if it continues to get too out of hand some blocks could have to be made to your accounts - I'm sure neither the administrators, nor you, nor Pete Peters want this. Have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - it contains some information to help you resolve disputes. First of all you should try to resolve this yourself, but if it fails there is a list of options which will help you figure out what to do next. But please stay clear of Requests for Comments against each other and Requests for Arbitration until you absolutely need to, because those involve a lot of time on behalf of other users, which should not be necessary).--Konstable 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a Tip

It might be wise to take down those comment you posted on the kinsellasux blog. That might get you into a bigger trouble. (I am referring to the slag post) Pete Peters 01:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about.Arthur Ellis 01:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked the blog, which is called www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com, and it doesn't take comments, so I'm confused by Pete Peter's post.Arthur Ellis 01:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Evaporators

Not CSD. Play nice - PLEASE!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what CSD is. I never heard of the band. Let's gte rid of it if it's a vanity listing. If not, ley it stay. Arthur Ellis 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

CSD is WP:CSD - it's what you nominated it for. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted you again - my patience is wearing thin with you. Next attempt at a unilateral edit will result in a 24 hour block. This is ridiculous now! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am done with you. Many important things to do. Page is protected. Get someone else to hold your hand. - CrazyRussian talk/email

01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You could use a little hand-holding and some serious slef-reflection re: your biases and POV, CrzrussianArthur Ellis 01:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use {{db}} in this way. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hot Nasties is an excellent candidate for speedy delete. A no-name band, no albums, no major performances, just some 20-year-olds in Calgary playing punk music 25 years ago. Contribution to human society: nil.Arthur Ellis 04:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability criteria of WP:BAND include

• Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)
• Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city
• Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.
• Has been the subject of a biography published as a book, or has several articles by at least 2 different authors in the peer reviewed publications.

Geedubber 04:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Borry you lose. :) The article staysPete Peters 05:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguments

My experience with Wikipedia is that it is most productive to concentrate on an area where other people aren't going to revert the things that I want to do. There's not much point to nominating articles for deletion if other people won't agree. Concentrate on non-controversial topics and you'll probably have more fun. Also, please take a look at the article at Railway signalling and perhaps the ones at Canadian Pacific Railway and Windsor Station (Montreal) and see if you can improve them. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the railway signalling entry, which was obviously written by a Brit and had nothing about North American ABS and CTC systems and very little about train order systems (which were just on the way out at CP when I started). Maybe we can get a shot of the all-Canada CTC system set up in Calgary just before I left. When I get time, I'll write about the difference between CTC in double-track and multi-track systems (i.e. in the transcontinental vs. the Corridor in Canada).

I had already fixed the entry on CP some months ago but it still needs serious work. I did some fixes on the history this weekend. Right now, my major problems with it lie in the repetition of quite a bit of material, especially about passenger trains, though the entry. How technical should this be? Should there be material re: the switch from steam to diesel? Modern innovations like CTC traffic control, the switch to continuous welded rail? The safety issues that came up after the Mississauga run-off of 1980?Arthur Ellis 12:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bourrie

I was searching for the source for Bourrie's education because the link (I think it was Pete's) was indirect. I noticed another thing that you both have in common, he worked for Canadian Pacific too: "In June, I got a job with Canadian Pacific making as much money to start as my father made after 15 years of teaching, so I was away most of the last month." The article implied that he went to Western the following year so I don't think that he had a long career there. But I thought you'd get a kick out of that. Who knows, maybe he has a "firm butt" too? --JGGardiner 07:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably a summer job. We used to hire anybody with a pulse in the late 1970s. CP Rail had twice as many employees and half as much track back then. Arthur Ellis 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Warren

Can you come to the talk page and discuss this issue further? Thanks! Yanksox 15:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hot Nasties

The consensus of editors appears to be that this band's article does assert notability. Please don't keep nominating it for speedy deletion. If you are still unhappy, refer it to the Articles for Deletion process. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder that AFD is not a voting process. It is not most votes win kind of thing. Pete Peters 23:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

John Arpin

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the John Arpin article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Mak (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Flounce time

Well, that's it for me. It's been a slice! Arthur Ellis 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) RIP

Hope You Are Happy

[[1]] This poor guy was a victim, I thanked him for stopping the vandals and bullies. He will be missed. Pete Peters 21:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Much more than you will, I'm sure.Arthur Ellis 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

24hr blocks

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that edit warring is unproductive and is treated very seriously. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't do ant of those things. Yet again, you have shown your bias on the Kinsella page, CRZ.Marie Tessier 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No he did not. I applied the wrong template it a rush - I have now changed the text to reflect the circumstances. I could not be further away from bias here - the subject of Kinsella specifically and Canadian politics in general is of zero interest to me. I am just trying to stop the edit warring. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

carelss and stoopid is such a bad combination in a lawyer.206.191.33.126 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if memory serves me well, Arthur did tell me to stick to wills and not take any capital cases... :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella RFAR

Please be advised that a request for arbitration is being filed over the continued edit war occurring over this page. Please feel free to make a statement on the request page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Asthma, etc.

I think that I should clarify what I wrote on Geedub's talk page. I think that he asked Bucketsofg about your IP, rather than your identity and my unsolicited comment may have made his intentions look different. As for me, I just thought that it was interesting that you and Bourrie have that in common. You have a lot in common. But I've talked about that with you before (on this page actually) and I didn't think it meant anything other than a funny coincidence.

Frankly I don't think that you are Bourrie. I think that you like him but that doesn't mean anything. There are people who insert positive stuff on the Stephen Harper page and I don't think that they're Harper. Besides, I think that it would have been very stupid of Bourrie to have used you as an identity. And I don't think that Bourrie is a stupid guy. But I should also say that I wouldn't care if you (or anyone else) were Bourrie. As I pointed out in one of the talk pages (Kinsella I think) the autobiography guidelines are not really policy and it wouldn't have been against the rules, as I understand them, for Bourrie to edit his own article. What I do care about is your behaviour and Pete's too and to a different extent everyone else's, including all those IPs. And I think that's what has to get sorted out in this whole mess. --JGGardiner 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My focus has always been on keeping the Kin sella article honest and accurate.Arthur Ellis 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments that you left on my talk page. I think that Pete was unfair to you and you to him. I think that you both knew how to push each other's buttons and both reacted badly when those buttons were pushed. It does look like he started it. Although I'm sure that Pete would say that his actions weren't illegitimate per se if he legitimately believed you were a sockpuppet. In any event, it doesn't really matter how it started, the problem is that it continued. I'm happy that you've admitted (in the RfAr) that some of your actions were reprehensible. Pete seems to have admitted to, well, something. I can't quite understand his statement. But I think that he said that some his actions were wrong also. I'm not really familiar with the artbitration process but as far as I'm concerned, we have to look not just at who was wrong but how to make things right. --JGGardiner 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Rachel Marsden. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Bucketsofg✐ 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP policy

A direct quote from the BLP policy page:

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.

That's the bottom line. Bearcat 23:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked you for 24 hours violating the WP:3RR rule on Rachel Marsden. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC) This block was illegal as per Wiki BLP p\olicy.Arthur Ellis 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

RfM Rachel Marsden

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Arthur Ellis for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Ianking 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Third 3RR block

You have been blocked for one week for violation WP:3RR for a third fourth time and using a confrimed sockpuppet of yours to try to escape a block.--Konstable 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Block dispute

I see you are not happy about the block. Using sockpuppets to avoid it won't help. Use {{unblock}} to contest the block properly.--Konstable 23:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

"

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arthur Ellis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reason: Illegal block, as 3RR rule is waived when editor is attempting to remove libelous material from bio of living person. I admit to using sockpuppets as this has been the only way for me to make my case, despite the wiki policy. I am attempting to file an arbitration case in this regard.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Arthur Ellis 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of sockpuppets to edit war is highly inappropriate, and if you have concerns that WP:LIVING is being violated, then you should bring it up on the talk page if multiple users continue to revert your edits. It is always best to discuss controversial changes instead of revert warring over them, especially when it comes to sockpuppets. You should request to be unblocked instead of immediately going on to use sockpuppets. Can you provide specific bits of evidence that parts of the article are inappropriate for wikipedia? The information that you were removing appears to have been properly sourced (even if it may be seen as negative), and verifiability is what is most important in these cases. Cowman109^Talk 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

Unblock

"{{unblock}}, as 3RR rule is waived when editor is attempting to remove libelous material from bio of living person. I admit to using sockpuppets as this has been the only way for me to make my case, despite the wiki policy. I have filed an arbitration is this regard wikipedia:requests for arbitration Rachel Marsden, which has a 2/0 support so far.}}[[User:Arthur Ellis|Arthur Ellis

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden arbitration

A Request for arbitration has been filed regarding the editing of Rachel Marsden, alleging that it is not edited in accordance with Biographies of living people, and you have been named as one of the parties. Thatcher131 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to add to the arbitration case request, you can add what you would like to say here and I can move it to the arbitration case page if you'd like. Cowman109^Talk 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'd like to add this:

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)

Unblocked

I have unblocked your account (one day early) so you can participate in the Rachel Marsden arbitration case. Four arbitrators have voted to hear the case, so it should be officially opened within a day or so, and you can place evidence on the evidence page. Please be mindful of the restrictions placed on your editing in your own arbitration case. It also will probably not help your credibility if, during the arbitration to address biography of living persons issues, you use IP addresses to make edits calling Warren Kinsella names. Good luck. Thatcher131 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, FloNight 02:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a clarificationto my statement here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden#Comment by User:Konstable, as I think some of my choice of words lead to you mis-understanding some parts. Cheers.--Konstable 08:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please place proposals on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Workshop. I have rolled back this edit. Fred Bauder 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: You have been blocked for violating the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella for editing Mark Bourrie from an IP address as shown by here and [2]. The block is for 12 hours, which should not impact the Rachel Marsden arbitration case. However, if you continue to ignore the arbitration decision the next blocks will be longer. Thatcher131 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars etc

Hi Arthur!

The edits you made here and here look like perniciously nastly personal attacks. Obviously, this isn't what you meant, so would you consider revising those comments - as soon as possible - to avoid them being mistaken for crude trolling? Thanks very much! I'm always reluctant to block were there is doubt so I'd be unhappy in doing so to you for personal attacks you didn't mean. Let me know as soon as you've altered them. Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I wandered past the page in question, and you've changed some of the remarks, but the personal attacks implied are still stunningly clear. Would you like to revisit the matter again - as soon as possible - and award a barnstar in good faith? All I can see at the moment are what look like ill-disguised personal attacks and that's disturbing. To be frank with you, I don't know/care what history you have with this user, if any, but you're going to have to change something, and quickly, or it's likely you'll be blocked for a day or two for personal attacks. I'm sure your edits are in good faith, but the fact that they can be misread so easily suggests a problem with tone I'm sure you'd like to deal with now! Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• And [3] might be good to go too, do you think? ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean that in a general way. I don't know if he's in grad school or law school.Arthur Ellis

Personal attack warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Arthur, I appreciate that you've got a lot to contribute to the encyclopedia, and I hope you manage to work through your current issues, but calling editors you don't like Nazis (as in the edit I removed here) is (1) really offensive and (2) probably going to get you permabanned. I understand that you're frustrated, but each time you lash out, you're just making the outcome worse, IMHO. Thanks, TheronJ 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: I have blocked you for reinserting the personal attack you posted in your arbitration case after it was removed by TheronJ. [4] The block is for 24 hours. I will also inform Fred Bauder, who may choose to unblock you early if he feels your participation will be be more beneficial than disruptive. Thatcher131 16:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please fix this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=82453658 Fred Bauder 18:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I already fixed it, I think. I assumed it was an accident. Thatcher131 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea. I don't get it. Was it an edit conflict? Arthur Ellis 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

File:Yellow warning.png

Warning: Fred has made it very clear that your arbitration ruling extends to include Rachel Marsden. Please do not edit the article again. If you do, I will block you. If you can not respect the decisions of the arbitration committee you will likely have a very short career here.

Now, on the subject of Rachel Marsden herself, I will be taking a sharp axe to the article. I am not entirely sure, based on buckets' comments on the workshop page, that he and Fred are on the same wavelength, but we'll have to see how that plays out. You have appealed your original case; until that case is overturned, you may not edit Rachel Marsden. Please don't. Thatcher131 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My edits are fine. You people are on the losing side. You have no shame.Arthur Ellis 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Rory096 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. Arthur Ellis 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked: 3 hours. I warned you. If you read my comment above, you find reasont to be slightly encouraged, and if you wait for my edits, perhaps even more so. I also suggest that letting buckets have his way with the article, for the time being, might be good stratgey. (Let him dig his own hole deeper; don't dig your own hole). Anyway, I'm doing my best to be neutral here; I'm sorry you don't see it that way. Thatcher131 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert this. Fred Bauder 03:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A prank played by his room mate. Fred Bauder 13:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I might have believed that if his conduct hadn't been so aggregious. Arthur Ellis 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked: 3 hours for editing Rachel Marsden. I'm sorry that you can't be bothered to have even minimal respect for the arbitration committee's jurisdiction over your behavior. It has been made patently clear that the ban in the prior case extends to this article. You could have contacted me on my talk page or proposed changes to the article on its talk page. By continuing to ignore their authority you make it difficult for anyone to have sympathy for your arguments. Someone complaining that high subway fares have a disproprtionate impact on the poor (to make up a random example) will not get taken seriously once he gets caught spray painting grafitti on the subway cars. Thatcher131 11:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred's never been a stickler for the rules: [5]. Arthur Ellis 13:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy Shit!

[6]