Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Evidence

I don't know if such a thing is possible. But everyone seems to be concerned with the identities of users and whether or not they are the subjects of these articles (Kinsella, Bourque and Bourrie). I've noticed that Bourrie is actually on vacation in BC at this time, according to his blog. I was thinking that, if she (as she identifies) was interested, Arthur might want to do some sort of IP check to just show her doubters that he's not Bourrie (that is using Arthur's old Ontario IP rather than one from BC) once and for all and just put those accusations to bed finally so all those preoccupied with their doubts can finally move on and address the real problems.

Obviously there are consent and policy questions about that which I don't know the answer to. And I certainly wouldn't suggest that Arthur should consent to something if she didn't want to. But it was just a thought. Because, as I'd said, nobody seems to be able to move past the identity questions and move on to the real troubling part which is the editing behaviours. Thanks. --JGGardiner 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I expect the arbitration committee will get past the identity issue real fast since they see a lot of cases. If the parties don't present evidence focused on bad begavior (regardless of real life identity), they may find "their side" as it is, at a disadvantage.  What is lacking at this point is a serious examination of the misdeeds of Ellis and the IP addresses supporting his POV on Kinsella; and an examination of the editors and IPs supporting Kinsella.  But its still early. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)