User talk:Arthur Ellis: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:32, 20 October 2006 editArthur Ellis (talk \| contribs)1,447 edits →Wow... I didn't know it was this bad, and I'm a friggin' pessimist:← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:24, 8 July 2007 edit undoHeqs (talk \| contribs)7,126 editsm rv sockpuppet
(11 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Arthur Ellis talk page
	==]==

	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. ] 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


	Sure. I don't know what the problem is. Mostly, I just wanted to tighten and copy-edit.] 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. ] 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.] 01:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	<p>When ] there is a small field labeled "]" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:</p> ]<!--

	--><p>The text written here will appear on the ] page, in the ], on the ], and in the ] of users who are watching that article. See ] for full information on this feature.</p><!--

	-->

	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. <!-- Template:Summary --> <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">]</font></span> 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." <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">]</font></span> 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	==Welcome==
	Hello, '''{{PAGENAME}}''', and ] to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the ''']''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! 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 ], add a question to the ] or ask me on <!-- ] (broken) --> my talk page. Again, welcome! <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">]</font></span> 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Mediation question ==

	You left a message on the Medcab case page concerning ] stating, ''I would mediate this one if parties are agreeable. ] 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. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 03:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Mediation ==

	Thank you for your responce at ].
	Please show up also at ].--] 09:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Re:Battle of the Lower Dnieper ==

	I certainly have no objections if you mediate this case. :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 10:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

	== User: HistoryBA ==

	Your unsubstantiated personal attacks against me are inappropriate and a clear violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I would ask you please to think twice in the future before making comments that are harmful to the community spirit of this venture. ] 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.]

	: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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages entries. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 12:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I should add that I have reviewed the ] 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. ] 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. ]\|] 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
	==3RR block==
	] You have been temporarily ] from editing for vandalism of Misplaced Pages. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.<!-- {{blocked}} --> (for 24 hours) - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 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 ] - just stop the war. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Mediation removal ==

	Due to your recent block for violating ], 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 Misplaced Pages could possibly lead to problems at this time. I ask that you get a bit more experience before jumping into mediation with the ] just yet. Thanks. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 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.] ] 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
	:You were blocked for conducting an edit war and hurting our encyclopedic goals. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 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. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I could not think any other worst person than Arthur Ellis aka ] 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.
	] 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. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::: Okay my beef with im is over.
	] 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	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. -- ] <small>] ]</small> 22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

	The article needed to be posted because the reference kept being deleted from the article by vandal IP. ] 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Where did that information come from, is there a link? -- ] <small>] ]</small> 22:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

	Yes. It's now on the article page, but 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.] 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.] 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 ], 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. ] 00:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

	You have done something very dishonest. Kinsella is often credited for the Barney stunt. Misplaced Pages 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.
	] 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. ] 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. ] 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)] 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. ] 00:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

	I just want you to get things right. It is not the "spirit" of Misplaced Pages 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.] 00:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
	:You don't have to be nasty to get things right. The spirit of Misplaced Pages is to work cooperatively toward a better product, not to insult anyone who one believes has made an error. I can cite the Misplaced Pages policy if you don't believe me. ] 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. ] 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Sentences that start with "you have done something very dishonest" clearly violate the Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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.] 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. ]

	Maybe "brick" would be more accurate.
	Now please go away.] 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 Misplaced Pages, or (3) you are banned from Misplaced Pages. 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. ] 15:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

	You are so kind to give me such empowerment. Thank you so much. ] 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 ] - 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 ]s against each other and ] until you absolutely need to, because those involve a lot of time on behalf of other users, which should not be necessary).--] 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) ] 01:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

	I have no idea what you are talking about.] 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.] 01:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	Not CSD. Play nice - PLEASE!! - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 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. ] 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

	:CSD is ] - it's what you nominated it for. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 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! - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 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. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small>

	01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)



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

	:Please don't use {{tl\|db}} in this way. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

	] 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.] 04:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

	: Notability criteria of ] 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.
	] 04:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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

	== Arguments ==

	My experience with Misplaced Pages 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 ] and perhaps the ones at ] and ] and see if you can improve them. ] (] \| ] 05:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


	I fixed the ] 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?] 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? --] 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. ] 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Warren==
	Can you come to the Thanks! ]] 15:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	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 ]. Thanks. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 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. ] 23:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	==John Arpin==
	Hello, and ]! We appreciate your contributions to the ] article, but we cannot accept ] 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 ]. Happy editing!<!-- Template:Nothanks --> ] <font color="green">]</font> 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


	==Flounce time==

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

	==Hope You Are Happy==
	] This poor guy was a victim, I thanked him for stopping the vandals and bullies. He will be missed. ] 21:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

	== 24hr blocks ==

	<div style="clear: both"></div>{{{1\|] }}}'''You have been temporarily ] from editing for vandalism of Misplaced Pages.''' 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. <!-- Template:Test5 --> - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 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.] 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. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	carelss and stoopid is such a bad combination in a lawyer.] 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... :) - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	== ] RFAR ==

	Please be advised that a ] is being filed over the continued edit war occurring over this page. Please feel free to make a statement on the request page. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]\|]\|])</small></tt> 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. --] 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	My focus has always been on keeping the Kin sella article honest and accurate.] 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. --] 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Hello,

	An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

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

	== 3RR ==

	Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages under the ], which states that nobody may ] 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.<!-- Template:3RR-n --> ]]<font color="grey">] 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. ] 23:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

	== Blocked ==

	I blocked you for 24 hours violating the ] rule on ]. ] ] 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	This block was illegal as per Wiki BLP p\olicy.] 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

	==RfM Rachel Marsden==
	{{RFM-Request\|Rachel Marsden}}

	== Suspected sockpuppetry ==

	==] case==
	{\| align="left"
	\|\| ]
	\|}
	You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

	== Third 3RR block ==

	You have been blocked for one week for violation ] for a <s>third</s> fourth time and using a confrimed sockpuppet of yours to try to escape a block.--] 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 {{tl\|unblock}} to contest the block properly.--] 23:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

	{{tl\|unblock}}
	"{{unblockreviewed\|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.}}] 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

	:Use of sockpuppets to edit war is highly inappropriate, and if you have concerns that ] 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 ] is what is most important in these cases. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
	{{tl\|unblock}}


	==Unblock==
	"{{tl\|unblock\|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 have filed an arbitration is this regard ] Rachel Marsden, which has a 2/0 support so far.}}[[User:Arthur Ellis\|Arthur Ellis

	==]==
	This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from ] 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 ]. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account.
	For the Arbitration Committee. ] 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

	== Rachel Marsden arbitration ==

	A ] has been filed regarding the editing of ], alleging that it is not edited in accordance with ], and you have been named as one of the parties. ] 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. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

	Yep. I'd like to add this:

	On Sept. 22, Bucketsofg wrote this on the ] 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.] 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 ] issues, you use IP addresses to make edits calling Warren Kinsella names. Good luck. ] 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	==]==		==]==
			This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
	Hello,

	An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

	On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] 02:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I have made a clarificationto my statement here: ], as I think some of my choice of words lead to you mis-understanding some parts. Cheers.--] 08:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

	Please place proposals on ]. I have rolled back . ] 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

	== Blocked ==

	] '''Blocked:''' You have been blocked for violating the provisions of ] for editing ] from an IP address as shown by and . 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. ] 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

	== Barnstars etc ==

	Hi Arthur!

	The edits you made and look like perniciously nastly ]. 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! ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 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! ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	:*And might be good to go too, do you think? ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 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.]

	== Personal attack warning ==

	Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) -->

	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 ) 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, ] 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. 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. ] 16:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

	==Please fix this==
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=82453658 ] 18:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
	:Fred, I already fixed it, I think. I assumed it was an accident. ] 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
	Yea. I don't get it. Was it an edit conflict? ] 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

	] '''Warning:''' Fred has made it very clear that your arbitration ruling extends to include ]. 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 ]. Please don't. ] 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

	Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> --] 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


	I don't see it that way. ] 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. ] 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

	Please don't revert . ] 03:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
	:A prank played by his room mate. ] 13:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
	I might have believed that if his conduct hadn't been so aggregious. ] 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

	] '''Blocked:''' 3 hours for editing ]. 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. ] 11:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)




	== Friendly advice ==

	Arthur, Fred's pretty much the only advocate you and Ms. Marsden have on the arb comm hearing. I understand that you're frustrated, but Misplaced Pages's ] and ] policies don't have a exception for "but I was really mad."

			Per ] normally to be avoided, articles should not link to copies of press reports archived on any site in violation of copyright. Per ]: State where you got it, citations should state the original source (i.e. the LA Times) and the intermediate source (i.e. "as retrieved from LexisNexis on October 16, 2006"). Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate ], be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to ] rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied. For violation of his previously imposed article ban, as well as edit warring, block evasion, and sockpuppety, Arthur Ellis is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one month.
	I've seen a lot of arb comm hearings end like this -- one person gets madder and madder until they get permabanned, but I've never seen someone who was ''winning'', (and who had a pending request that the Arb Comm remove an existing ban) behave so self-destructively.

			For the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, ] 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	I hope that this comes across as constructive advice -- the arb comm hearing might end up improving the Marsden page, and, with work, you can probably get your Canadian politics block lifted, but every time you revert an admin, call Fred a Nazi, or generally display an unwillingness to at least give the system a week or two to produce a result, you're hurting your case and Marsden's. Thanks, ] 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:24, 8 July 2007

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Per Misplaced Pages:External links#Links normally to be avoided, articles should not link to copies of press reports archived on any site in violation of copyright. Per Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Intermediate sources: State where you got it, citations should state the original source (i.e. the LA Times) and the intermediate source (i.e. "as retrieved from LexisNexis on October 16, 2006"). Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied. For violation of his previously imposed article ban, as well as edit warring, block evasion, and sockpuppety, Arthur Ellis is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one month.

For the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)