User talk:Ceraurus/archive1


 * Hi, Please familiarize yourself with 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. Homey 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Stop hand.png|left|30px]] Hi Mark. You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.  Both Homey and Can&#39;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. 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 blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may 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. (I am assuming that you and Isotelus are the same; if that is so, the 3RR covers you both.) Bucketsofg 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ceraurus 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. ( Actually, we have no way of knowing if you actually are Homey 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark. I googled your user name and found that, if you really are, you certainly have some recent experience with 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! 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.


 * 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. 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. Homey 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Rachel Marsden
I've blocked you for WP:3RR on Rachel Marsden 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 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 Wikipedia has policies about writing one's own page (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.Habsfannova 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanking Rachel Marsden
1. Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Rachel Marsden. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Do not blank content on Rachel Marsden, as you did here. It is considered vandalism. You have been blocked repeatedly for this kind of thing in the past. Please stop or you will be blocked again. Wiederaufbau 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

check user confirms 'Isotelus' = 'Ceraurus' =
The 'Check User' search on Isotelus confirms here that (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|(talk) 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. --He: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. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As noted by the blocker above, checkuser verified. You had previously agreed not to do such activity, so discussion had occurred. --pgk( talk ) 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Due process!!!!
 * Please read what wikipedia is not --pgk( talk ) 12:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he should be unblocked now64.230.103.23 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The user has been blocked more than six weeks. That seems long for an "indefinite block".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|(talk) 01:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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 work209.217.123.151 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 babelfish 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.  Bucketsofg✐ 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.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|(talk) 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. 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. 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|(talk) 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|(talk) 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Ceraurus was talking about HOTR, who posted on the Marsden article that someone is dating her, then reverted the edits, then slapped discussion protection on the Marsden talk page when someone called him on it.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.  Bucketsofg✐ 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)