Talk:Mark Bourrie

Should be deleted

This person is of zero interest or note and the whole thing seems to be an ego trip. Any reason not to delete this? CraigBurley (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this article was written by Mark Bourrie himself. He has not accomplished anything worthy of a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7398:6400:F149:E4FF:A455:A01C (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Promotional

Mr. Bourrie sounds like quite the accomplished man, but this article goes into far too much detail relative to his importance. Knoper (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Too much detail" is a very strange complaint. 99.246.14.66 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't if the article goes into amateur genealogy. Knoper (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to think of myself as a reasonable person, one who is only trying to trim this article down to reasonable size given the subject. Given the previous deletion requests, I'd say I'm in the middle. Please be reasonable and discuss. Knoper (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Request page protection from Knoper, removal of all BLP-violating material from this talk page.

knoper's claim that the subject of this article "targets" other people is both libellous and shows his lack of NPOV. 184.151.246.62 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you think the page needs protecting you need to go to WP:RFPP if there are blp issues the correct place is WP:BLPN. Amortias (T)(C) 19:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Knoper and have removed the excessive details. Just to give a random example, I rather doubt a 1995 book discusses where Bourrie's interest in shipwrecks comes from. This purported source doesn't mention Bourrie at all, for all I can tell. Neither does this source, which doesn't look particularly reliable in the first place. At best we were dealing with original synthesis here, something explicitly not appropriate on Wikipedia. If anything the article should be further shortened; there are entire sections that don't cite any references. Huon (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record as well, it is very clear that I was referring to the articles on Wikipedia (see the possessive case on "kinsella's", for example) as targets, which given the abundant history located in the talk pages and in the arbitrations/sock puppet drama of a few years back (see above infobox), is justified. However, to be on the safe side, I will remove the remark. Knoper (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, after looking through the sock puppet logs through the Ceraurus link above, I'm going to recuse myself from the article entirely. Life's too short to start climbing that mountain. Knoper (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bourrie on Canadaland

Just throwing this in here....at about 8:50, Bourrie discusses editing this talk page and others on Wikipedia. http://canadalandshow.com/podcast/duffy-fallout Knoper (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So what? Bourrie is allowed to discuss this entry and any others. In fact, he actually says in some posts on archived versions of this page that he wants to have input in the article. You can see his posts on this page, with his name on them. This page has been a troll-magnet for years. Knoper is agenda-pushing again. 99.246.14.66 (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying he doesn't, it's just here for reference given above comments and previous concerns. If you'd define what "agenda" I'm "pushing", you'd make far more sense. That and getting an actual username. Knoper (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly a mystery or something sinister. Scroll up near the top and see his posts. He says things like "I'm Mark Bourrie" and signs his posts with his own name. As for my getting a user name, I will when Wikipedia requires people to take responsibility by posting and editing under their own name. An IP is just as good as an avatar name, as far as I'm concerned. 99.246.14.66 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As the kids say, whatever. As I've advised, I'm done with this article. In the future I'd recommend against editing the article with "Add new award nomination. Congratulations" as an edit summary. Knoper (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

IP attacks

More IP doxing/outing attempts going on. Several have been blocked already. There's a new one today (two edits)Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate helpme request: See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Canadaland is a blog post. Idea of using it to quote a scoldong journalism prof seems like libel. Can you just say anything you want on Wilipedia and use any source you find on the Internet? GoldLilydog (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure User:GoldLilydog how it's any more of a blog post, than that Mark Bourrie's own Fairpress website. And surely the person has far more integrity than Mark Bourrie, with Mark Bourrie's history of paid editing of Wikipedia and hmm, reading deeper just now, there seems to be evidence that Mark Bourrie is carrying out some kind of vendetta against Canadaland - perhaps we should add more information about this into the article about Mark Bourrie! Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I take it your edits are payback for the accurate FairPress criticisms of Brown's attacks on WE? Seems Nfitz is hiding behind page protection to make an attack page against Bourrie in response to his Canadaland writings. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:7034:60A4:AE46:9091 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm just trying to improve a terribly-written article as neutrally as possible. There's no references in the article to Bourrie's un-notable attacks on his own blog of Jesse Brown, nor to WE. I've simply tried to distill a lot of badly-written, redundant, and unnecessary text, into a more suitable article. You can't of course really be Mark Bourrie, as he used to edit until User:Mark Bourrie, User:Ceraurus, and User:Arthur Ellis and remains banned from Wikipedia for sock-puppetry. Are you a User:Spoonkymonkey sock-puppet? Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I am Mark Bourrie, and those accounts have nothing to do with me. I am a defamation lawyer practicing in Canada. My FairPress posts regarding Jesse Brown's Canadaland attacks on WE are accurate, and your mentioning of them suggests you have an agenda to push. You are deliberately trying to ruin my reputation to protect Jesse Brown. I will not let that happen. -- Mark Bourrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying you didn't make this edit to this page in February 2006 claiming to be Mark Bourrie? The real Mark Bourrie testified in court to having edited Mike Duffy. Which account did you use? Are these 2009 edits yours? Nfitz (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be editing the Mark Bourrie page as some punitive exercise for something that happened eight years ago, and something you speculate happened 13 years ago. Let it go. I testified I edited the page in summer 2010 to remove vandalism. Keep in mind that Duffy was not appointed to the Senate until January 2009 and the expense stories did not appear until 2013. Most of the issues Duffy had involved YouTube, not Wikipedia. Mainly, he did not like his picture. Anyway, this appears to be your payback, along with an attempt to minimize me and my achievements to support Jesse Brown. Hardly conforms with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and Biography of Living People policies. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is very neutral. I don't see anything in it that I've added that's at all questionable. Mostly, I've improved references, removed material not supported by references, and removed a lot of irrelevant and redundant information. I'd never even heard of Mark Bourrie until a few weeks ago, until I saw a reference to him, and came across this very badly written article, and sought to improve it. Not sure what Jesse Brown has to do with any of the edits here; I was not aware of Mark Bourrie's feud with Jesse Brown until you brought it to my attention.

The real issue here is that the real Mark Bourrie was banned for sockpuppetry from Wikipedia in 2006 - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus. Arbcom then concluded in September 2008 (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella that User:Arthur_Ellis was the same user as User:Ceraurus (which was renamed from User:Mark Bourrie ... ie the real Mark Bourrie. And User:Arthur_Ellis remains indefinitely blocked. If you are indeed Mark Bourrie, then you are circumventing a block. Which then makes the edits you(?) admitted to in court interesting, as it was in circumvention of the existing block. The removal of the Duffy picture was done by User:Spoonkymonkey in this 2010 edit - which is the same user that Kady O'Malley identified back in 2015. It's very clear that User:Arthur_Ellis was the same user as User:Ceraurus and User:Mark Bourrie. But then the Duffy trial also makes it clear you were User:Spoonkymonkey. However Spoonkymonkey was also blocked earlier this year for sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spoonkymonkey/Archive.

You just can't be here editing this talk page, after an Arbcom case, the 2006 and then the April 2019 ban for sockpuppetry. First you need to clear the name - or better yet, just apologize for everything, promise not to do it again, and move on. You also need to pay attention to WP:COI - if I was adding terrible things about you, then I could see your point. I'm not, I've been keeping the edits as neutral as possible. I've not even touched the sole paragraph about Duffy, that's attributed to Canadaland, because I knew that it might be contentious, and would need a lot of thought - though I see that User:Timtempleton has now tried to improve it.

My advice is go find your Spoonkymonkey login, apologize profusely, and get the block lifted, and avoid articles where there's a conflict of interest - like Mark Bourrie and Jesse Brown (journalist). My gosh, look at what you've accomplished in the real world - surely you've get better things to do than wage wiki wars ... and this bizarre feud with Brown, that I don't even begin to comprehend (or care about). Nfitz (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have every right to come on this page and talk about the smear job you're doing. You would find my alternative solution to be much less pleasant. Your edits are obviously in retaliation, are not in good faith, and should be reverted. You have taken down everything positive about me, added nonsense from Christopher Waddell, and torqued the entry. You should take very, very careful note of what I do for a living and realize that I am, at this point, foregoing my rights to take more serious action in an attempt to settle this now. I am posting under my own name, trying to make a point with someone who hides behind anonymity. If Wikipedia was really serious, if it had adult supervision, everyone would be verified and post under their own name. That said, I have contacted Wikipedia's senior management and its arbitration department asking for help. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

1) There is no smear job. What in the article is a smear? And if it is, it's nothing that anyone had added since I've been looking at it.

2) What is your alternate solution? You have no choice really but to follow the guidelines here.

3) Retaliation for what? I didn't add the Waddell stuff - it was in the article when I first edited it, and months earlier.

4) You have no right to come to this page, as you are currently banned, at least twice, with your User:Ceraurus (renamed from User:Mark Bourrie) and User:Spoonkymonkey accounts. You should be following procedures from the talk pages there. Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"You would find my alternative solution to be much less pleasant." - this smacks of a legal threat or at the very least seems intended to have a chilling effect - both of which can result in swift blocks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Gravedancing, revenge, POV=

These comments look to me like "gravedancing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gravedancing. Bourrie stood up for a Rachel Marsden woman who was trashed on Wikipedia after she said she was sexually assaulted by her swim coach when no one else would, and Canadian Wikipedia editors were hiding behind dubious research by the far-right Frazer Institute.. He won that case in arbitration. He stood up to Warren Kinsella when Kinsella used Wikipedia to claim he had "successfully sued" Bourrie. Maybe Bourrie has not been a good Wikipedian, but I looked at the long term Spoonkymonkey edits. Lots of good work there, not a single block in years, and now this page is edited to hype anything negative about him. I googled him. This entry is not a good representation of his life. Sportsman360 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from GoldLilydog

This article is about me. Much of the Duffy material is inaccurate and the quote from Waddell is defamatory. Wikipedia should not be used for smearing people.

-- Mark Bourrie— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldLilydog (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GoldLilydog Please discuss your concerns. There are guidelines that protect people from false and defamatory statements, but properly sourced info that is notable can't and shouldn't be removed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.canadalandshow.com/canadaland-strong-armed-me-writing/ This puts the Duffy material into perspective. I was writing a book when I tried to help Duffy, who sat beside me in the press gallery for years. I had been teaching in Montreal for years (a fact removed from the entry) and was a member of the gallery to have access to the Library of Parliament so I could turn my PhD thesis into a book. Most of my published writing at that time was on historical issues and press censorship, I was not working as a reporter at the time, and Waddell, who had been approached by Canadaland for a quote, did not know what he was talking about. Recent edits to this page have removed almost everything positive -- the success of books I'v written, the four National Magazine Award nominations (including the award I won), other awards and recognition, the prestigious newspapers and magazines I wrote for during 30 years of journalism, and framed me as a hack. This entry is not being edited in good faith. It violates your neutral point of view and you biography of living persons policies. This page and archived versions of it are filled with defamatory content. -- Mark Bourrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The information is sourced. There is a long history of associated individuals editing this page. You've had enough chances. I don't see anything wrong with the page. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the page is borderline notable. I think if he wanted the article deleted an AFD would probably agree. 45.72.143.124 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure they've do though, someone who then claimed they were Mark Bourrie has been editing it since 2 days after it was created. On the other hand, they were the only delete vote it in the first AFD. The article was speedily kept at both AFDs in 2006. I initially had the same though but since 2006 there has been other main-stream media coverage such as this, this, this, [1], this, this, this, and this - some of those would be better references in the current article. Probably no point going an AFD route. Nfitz (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

First, I would be delighted if it was deleted. Second, Google search my name. You'll see how Nfitz has fished through Google to find negative material on me. My book Bush Runner is now the third-highest selling Canadian non-fiction book. Things like my National Magazine Award have been stripped out of this piece, along with all my academic writing and the names of the magazines I've written for. Good faith? Neutral POV? Conforming to biography of living people policy? Don't make me laugh. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:246C:426A:63B5:209B (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to stop saying things that aren't true. I spend an hour yesterday researching, referencing and putting in the National Magazine and other award, and the reward I get is to ignore that, and then make a personal attack that's not true! What have I added that's even negative? Other than an adjective here and there, all I've added are references for material that was already in the article. There's no reason that a book being in a top-10 list need be mentioned, it's all WP:ROUTINE; the book is already mentioned in the article, and referenced by the G&M review. There's certainly no reason that this couldn't go to AFD (as could any article really), I just don't think it will succeed. Would you like me to nominate it? Nfitz (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No AfD is necessary, in my view. Hi, Mr. Bourrie. Remember me? I'm the admin from BLPN who insisted on evidence to support claims being made. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to doubly insist on that now. Kindly support the assertion (in the form of diffs) that Nfitz has added "negative material" about you, or please withdraw that. El_C 13:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, I've put in a bit of text about book writing - I'd commented earlier I was unhappy deleting the nine existing paragraphs that said very little, but hadn't found anything to replace it with. So here's something neutral but brief. Nfitz (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Since it has come to my attention that the the subject is already indefinitely blocked, I have semiprotected this talk page, indefinitely. They may appeal that block to either the admin who imposed it, or to the Arbitration Committee. I advise them to rely on evidence rather than innuendo if and/or when they undertake this. El_C 15:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I should add that if the subject feels the article violates our policy on living persons, they may report those concerns via the Wikipedia email function — they are still entitled to do so, even while indefinitely blocked. El_C 15:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C, are we able to cut the quote from Waddell but keep the statement in Wikipedia's voice? 119 words for what is someone's uninvolved opinion seems unbalanced against the surrounding text. TheDragonFire (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: by all means, bold action is welcomed. El_C 18:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable ... I tried to stay away from anything controversial (as in related to controversy) - but that quote did stick out a bit. Nfitz (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)