all proposed
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.
On this case, 1 Arbitrator is recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground prohibits importation of personal disputes. It is grossly inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a venue for pursuit of a personal political battle.
2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be adequately sourced and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."
3) In an instance where one user has engaged in outrageous behavior which has resulted in others also engaging in minor violations, the focus of an arbitration case will be on the one who caused the trouble; on the presumption that the other users can carry on in a more or less satisfactory way if the main problem is dealt with.
4) Wikipedia:Autobiography, a guideline, offers advice to persons who are the subject of an article.
5) A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.
1) The locus of the dispute is editing of the articles concerning Warren Kinsella and other figures prominent in the Canadian political blogosphere. There is some evidence that the principals in this matter are themselves participants in the Canadian political blogosphere, especially Mark Bourrie. The dispute between these two gentlemen involved legal actions concerning alleged libel [1].
2) There is substantial evidence that Arthur_Ellis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who previously edited as Mark_Bourrie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ceraurus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has also edited as Marie_Tessier ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Isotelus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous sockpuppets Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#First_Assertion:_rampant_sock.2Fmeat-puppetry.
3) Arthur Ellis and his numerous socks have engaged in sustained tendentious editing and other disruption Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Pete_Peters Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#Second_Assertion:_sock.2Fmeat-puppets_used_to_circumvent_3RR and thereafter.
4) It is noted that Arthur Ellis is probably not the only offender.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Arthur_Ellis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.
2) Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account.
3) No remedy is imposed on offenders other than Arthur Ellis. If disruption continues, additional findings of fact may be made and remedies imposed on other offenders.
4) Warren Kinsella and related pages are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from editing the article, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.
1) Should Arthur Ellis editing under any name or ip violate the article ban imposed by this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
2) Should Arthur Ellis edit under any other username or use anonymous ips on a regular basis he may be banned from Wikipedia for an appropriate period. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.
all proposed
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.
On this case, 1 Arbitrator is recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground prohibits importation of personal disputes. It is grossly inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a venue for pursuit of a personal political battle.
2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be adequately sourced and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."
3) In an instance where one user has engaged in outrageous behavior which has resulted in others also engaging in minor violations, the focus of an arbitration case will be on the one who caused the trouble; on the presumption that the other users can carry on in a more or less satisfactory way if the main problem is dealt with.
4) Wikipedia:Autobiography, a guideline, offers advice to persons who are the subject of an article.
5) A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.
1) The locus of the dispute is editing of the articles concerning Warren Kinsella and other figures prominent in the Canadian political blogosphere. There is some evidence that the principals in this matter are themselves participants in the Canadian political blogosphere, especially Mark Bourrie. The dispute between these two gentlemen involved legal actions concerning alleged libel [1].
2) There is substantial evidence that Arthur_Ellis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who previously edited as Mark_Bourrie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ceraurus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has also edited as Marie_Tessier ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Isotelus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous sockpuppets Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#First_Assertion:_rampant_sock.2Fmeat-puppetry.
3) Arthur Ellis and his numerous socks have engaged in sustained tendentious editing and other disruption Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Pete_Peters Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#Second_Assertion:_sock.2Fmeat-puppets_used_to_circumvent_3RR and thereafter.
4) It is noted that Arthur Ellis is probably not the only offender.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Arthur_Ellis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.
2) Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account.
3) No remedy is imposed on offenders other than Arthur Ellis. If disruption continues, additional findings of fact may be made and remedies imposed on other offenders.
4) Warren Kinsella and related pages are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from editing the article, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.
1) Should Arthur Ellis editing under any name or ip violate the article ban imposed by this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
2) Should Arthur Ellis edit under any other username or use anonymous ips on a regular basis he may be banned from Wikipedia for an appropriate period. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.