Content deleted Content added
Bucketsofg (talk | contribs) add s-protect template |
archive |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Talk:Ceraurus/archive1]] |
|||
{{usertalk-sprotect}} |
|||
# Hi, Please familiarize yourself with [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]. Anyone who reverts an article more than 3 times in 24 hours is subject to a one day ban. You have reverted Rachel Marsden three times in one day so far, please don't do it a fourth time. [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
# Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia under the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that nobody may [[Wikipedia:revert|revert]] an article to a previous version 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.<!-- {{3RR}} --> [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can't sleep, clown will eat me]] 06:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
# [[Image:Stop hand.png|left|30px]] Hi Mark. You are in danger of violating the [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule|three revert rule]]. Please cease further reverts or you may be [[WP:BAN|blocked]] from further editing. <!-- {{3RR2}} --> Both [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] and [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can't sleep, clown will eat me]] have already asked you to stop reverting the [[Rachel_Marsden]] article. Please discuss any changes in [[Talk:Rachel_Marsden]] first. Thanks. [[User:Wiederaufbau|Wiederaufbau]] 12:56, 1 Feburary (UTC) |
|||
==3RR warning - March 7== |
|||
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia under the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that nobody may [[Wikipedia:revert|revert]] an article to a previous version 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 --> (I am assuming that you and Isotelus are the same; if that is so, the 3RR covers you both.) [[User:Bucketsofg|Bucketsofg]] 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Mark Bourrie replies: == |
|||
I put a very thorough reasoning of my edits in the "discussion" section. I, unlike you, also signed my name. It is easy to do anonymous postings that are obviously targetted at someone's professional and personal reputation, using the thinnest of sources (one article in a conservative fringe magazine, some stories from the Sun tabloid chain, an unreferenced Frank magazine, and two blogs) when you do not have the courage to sign your name. In Canada, where, I suspect you people are from, none of these sources would hold up in a libel trial. Libel laws exist for a reason: to protect the reputation of all people from anonymous smears. |
|||
(signed by Mark Bourrie) |
|||
Actually, we have no way of knowing if you actually are Mark Bourrie. [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Mark. I googled your user name and found that, if you really are Mark Bourrie, you certainly have some recent experience with [http://ottawawatch.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-my-libelous-words-say.html libel], so I'm sure you know that in order for libel to be proved you have to show that the information was false. I have already asked you to provide supporting links in the discussion page. Could you do so? Thanks! [[User:Wiederaufbau|Wiederaufbau]] 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Actually, the writer must show the information is true. The plaintiff can walk into court, say nothing, and make the author prove the allegation. It's the same in Britain, Canada and the US. Most of my Master's research was on this stuff, and I know I'm on firm ground. I think everything's covered in my version of Marsden. I don't believe there's direct libel in the old version, but if she sued in Quebec, for instance, she's win. Even truth, when it's a collection of damning facts used to support innuendo, is no defence in libel. For instance, the stuff about Marsden's father is true, but it's a stretch to say she's a "public person" and then toss her dad in. Woody Harrelson's dad's in jail for murder. Would anyone argue there's a "pattern" there? |
|||
I don't have a great stake in the Marsden stuff. I just had it pointed out to me by a student who used it to slag Wikipedia's integrity. Wikipedia is more yours than mine, so do what you like. |
|||
In my recent case (I am what I am, to quote the Great Man), I'm not worried because the Kinsella-Guite stuff is so well documented. He's indulging in libel chill. |
|||
If you want to know if I am me, leave a message on my blog and I'll send you a PM. |
|||
::Hi Mark. As [[User:Pasboudin]] has already pointed out in the discussion page, the writers have shown that their information is true with links. Have any of the sources used in the links retracted their statements? Otherwise, please do not blank sourced content without providing proof that sources are false. Thanks. [[User:Wiederaufbau|Wiederaufbau]] 17:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Just because something is sourced with a link does not necessarily make it true. Many "truths" can be strung together to form innuendo. I find the stuff about Marsden's father to be utterly loathsome, and I'd fail you if you were one of my students and included that. You ignore the points I make, then go running back to the line that "links" are "proof". Links to blogs and one article do not form a proof. You obviously are unfamiliar with what is accepted as "proof" in academia and in law. Wikipedia suffers from this kind of "scholarship". |
|||
You've been banned for 72 hours for vandalising [[Rachel Marsden]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=38187101&oldid=38087431]. [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Moron disambiguation page== |
|||
I've reverted your edits to the [[Moron]] page because it's not the place for details on a specific use of the word. If you want, you can add them to [[Moron (psychology)]]. [[User:SilentC|SilentC]] 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== 3rr on Rachel Marsden == |
|||
I've blocked you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Mark_Bourrie] for [[WP:3RR]] on [[Rachel Marsden]] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC). |
|||
: 3RR applies regardless of article quality. ''My 3 reverts were actually reverts of changes made to my work...'' ermm yes, thats usually the way. But you have miscounted them [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 10:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== carleton == |
|||
Conrad Black did not take journalism and he did in fact graduate with a B.A. in History. |
|||
Please check your facts in the future. |
|||
== About your page == |
|||
Hello, Mark. Wikipedia has policies about writing one's own page ([[Wikipedia:Autobiography]]). If you would like further details about issues put in, please pass it through the talk page if you could. This isn't an accusation that you've done anything wrong, just the policy. Thanks.[[User:Habsfannova|Habsfannova]] 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Signing your posts== |
|||
On talk: pages, including article and user talk pages, could you sign your comments with four tildes? <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> automatically stamps your username, linked, and the date and time, and it can even - how much time have you got? :) - be customized a bit, as described on [[Wikipedia:Signature]]. It the way every experienced Wikipedian does it, and it makes everything a lot easier to follow. Thanks! [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Blanking Rachel Marsden== |
|||
1. Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to [[:Rachel Marsden]]. It is considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. If you want to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Test2a-n (Second level warning) --> [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can't sleep, clown will eat me]] 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
2. Do not blank content on [[Rachel Marsden]], as you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=42708956&oldid=42697906 here]. It is considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. You have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMark_Bourrie blocked repeatedly] for this kind of thing in the past. Please stop or you will be blocked again. [[User:Wiederaufbau|Wiederaufbau]] 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== check user confirms 'Isotelus' = 'Ceraurus' = 'Mark Bourrie' == |
|||
The 'Check User' search on Isotelus confirms [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Results here] that Mark Bourrie (now Cerarus) is identical to Isotelus. |
|||
A lot of this problem had to do with trying to dodge being outed. I post only under Ceraurus. Ceraurus 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Rachel Marsden]]== |
|||
Please don't remove an sprotected tag from a protected article. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== indef. block == |
|||
despite your nice clean slate, you used a checkuser verified ip to skirt 3rr regulations while reverting [[Rachel Marsden]], so you've again been indefinitely blocked. i don't mean for this to remain permanent- it is, as i said, indefinite, and if you can convince another admin that you ''really'' won't screw up this time, that's ok with me. --[[User:Heah|He]]:[[User_talk:Heah|ah?]] 02:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I didn't skirt the 3rr rule with a sockpuppet. Several people use our computers at work. |
|||
I've been blocked for a month without contact or any sort of real process. |
|||
Ceraurus 23:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The unblock template was added without a reason so I've removed it. If you wish to be unblocked, provide a reason. {{tlp|unblock|Reason goes here}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
<nowiki>{{unblock|Sock puppetry allegation unfounded and unproven; no attempt at any kind of discussion or adjudication.}}</nowiki> |
|||
: As noted by the blocker above, checkuser verified. You had previously agreed not to do such activity, so discussion had occurred. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Wow. Due process!!!! |
|||
: Please read [[WP:NOT|what wikipedia is not]] --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 12:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe he should be unblocked now[[User:64.230.103.23|64.230.103.23]] 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The user has been blocked more than six weeks. That seems long for an "indefinite block".[[User:Arthur Ellis|Arthur Ellis]] 23:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:No, sorry, this was a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user who was using the sock to continue edit warring on the [[Rachel Marsden]] article. If he wants to come back as a new user and make some valid edits, there's no way to stop him, but there is no reason to unblock this account. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 01:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
<nowiki>{{unblock|unproven/unfair allegation/block]]}}</nowiki> |
|||
Actually, Zoe, you might want to check your facts. This isn't a sockpuppet name. I am a real editor who is accused of not logging in and using IPs in a library to change the entry. As far as I'm concerned, the allegation is not proven and it is not true, though I do honestky believe the Marsden article a a gross invasion of privacy and is politically motivated. Others feel that way. Even Jimbo Wales has posted that the entry is way over the top. That note was quickly archived, so you'll have to look in the back pages. The half-dozen posters on the Marsden entry have refused all attempts to compromise and continue to post unproven allegations lifted fron newspapers. Other than the Marsden dispute, I've done some good work[[User:209.217.123.151|209.217.123.151]] 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm sorry, your block has been review several times and will not be lifted. If you'd like to contribute productively, please create a new account. Do not keep adding the unblock template to this page. Shell <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 11:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I think that Shell is giving you bad advice here, Cerarus. If you create a new account and edit with it while blocked, you will be violating [[WP:SOCK]]. In practical terms, you might not get caught if you do so--especially if you avoid breaking the rules. But if you are caught whatever account you create will almost certainly be indefinitely blocked. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">ets</font></b>]]<font color="grey">[[User_talk:Bucketsofg|<b>ofg</b></font>✐]] 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
So this guy has gone from indefinite block to permanent ban, even though he says he shares an IP -- perhaps a wireless system or corporate account -- with others in his line of work.[[User:Arthur Ellis|Arthur Ellis]] 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:So he says. Sock puppeting has been rampant on the [[Rachel Marsden]] article, why should we believe otherwise? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
How does someone prove they are not a sockpuppet? It's obvious you and Bucketsofg want him bannwed because of your content fight. I think everyone who reads this page is reallly missing out if they don't look at the Marsden page and the heavily-censored discussion pages that show very clear evidence of administrator abuse. [[User:Arthur Ellis|Arthur Ellis]] 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I think if Ceraurus goes to an administrator and explained that he wasn't fully aware how wikipedia worked and told them that he would adhere to the current accepted policies then there is a chance they would reinstate him. However, Ceraurus has used multiple sock-puppets in the past, gotten into numerous editwars, and blanked pages for no acceptable reason(under the current wikipedia policy. I assume he thinks that he had good reason, but that isn't how wikipedia works) So making that case would be really hard to do since he has had plenty of warnings. Bucketsofg and Zoe has done nothing wrong, and I suggest you not make anymore personal attacks against them. I also suggest you read [[WP:AGF]]. Plus with guys like you out there Arthur, I am sure his viewpoint will be fully represented. [[User:Geedubber|Geedubber]] 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't recall having even edited the Rachel Marsden article, but if I have, it was purely to step into the middle of an edit war to try to calm things. I don't have any input to the content, I never even heard of her until I read the article. To say that I am in a content fight is blatantly incorrect. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::No, I was right the first time. I have never edited this article, so I am not involved in any content fight. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I think Ceraurus was talking about [[Homeontherange]], who posted on the Marsden article that someone named Andre Lehrer is dating her, then reverted the edits, then slapped discussion protection on the Marsden talk page when someone called him on it.[[User:64.26.147.111|64.26.147.111]] 15:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I assume you meant "Arthur Ellis", not Ceraurus. Ceraurus himself hasn't left a comment here under his own name for quite some time. One way or the other, no admin is going to lift the block until Ceraurus makes his own case in his own voice. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">ets</font></b>]]<font color="grey">[[User_talk:Bucketsofg|<b>ofg</b></font>✐]] 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
=== FOR THE HARD WORKIN WIKI ADMINS == |
|||
Just a thought for all you hard workin wiki admins. |
|||
CrzRussian (like your page) |
|||
All the negative action on this page, Warren Kinsella, Elizabeth May, Pierre Bourque (journalist), Rachel Marsden is all by one guy: |
|||
Mark Bourrie |
|||
Look at all those Magma IP's from Ottawa always on the same pages: Kinsella, Bourque, May, Bourrie, Marsden(usually 209's) and compare them with Arthur Ellis, this one, Marie Tessier. |
|||
What does that tell you ? |
|||
He's just disconnecting his RJ-45 from the modem box to force an IP renew. |
|||
And he must have about 4 pages open ready to edit with the numerial IP and/or with a wiki ID like Ellis etc... |
|||
It's all just one guy against all of you. |
|||
Sorry, but you have no concerted plan against this guy and he's running you in circles. |
|||
It's sad to watch... |