User:Bucketsofg/AccusationsAnswered

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Not all of Bucketsofg's edits are bad, and he is certainly not the worst offender in the Marsden entry. That pride of place would go to departed Wikipedia admin Homeontherange [1]. Bucketsofg is notable because has an ongoing campaign to discredit former Canadian MP Gurmant Grewal and anyone associated with him. (Bucketsofg takes control of the Grewal article July 17, 2005, his first day on Wikipedia, and reverts most attempts to change it [2].) Grewal may well be a great target for investigative journalists, but that is not Wikipedia is supposed to be about. The Bucketsofgrewal (Bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com) blog is written anonymously. He also owns and uses bucketsdata.wordpress.com as a data repository to link to. I believe it's rather unethical, cowardly and more than a bit creepy that someone spends so much time and energy researching Grewal and writing about him anonymously. Bucketsofg's first edit, in June, 2005, was to the Gurmant Grewal entry [3], and, in fact, he did little else until early this year, when he moved on to Marsden and other projects.

   Bucketsofg: My interests pre-wikipedia and outside-wikipedia are not relevant here. Yes, I had/have an investigative blog dedicated to the Grewal tapes that gained some attention last year. The blog is/was, self-confessedly, original research, something that I've consciously avoided on wikipedia. The assertion that my edits to Rachel Marsden are part of a campaign against Grewal and his associates is untrue and not consistent with the facts. Firstly, Marsden had no involvement in Grewal tapes and as far as I remember she is nowhere mentioned there; second, there are many individuals more closely associated with Grewal whom I've never edited in wikipedia.

2. His first edit to Marsden is to change her description from "blunt conservative" to "controversial conservative" [4].

   Bucketsofg: As I pointed on the talk page, the fact that she is controversial is obvious given the article. In any case, Ceraurus/Ellis apparently approved of the edit at the time [5].

3. Here, he removes the fact she was a catwalk model, which may or may not be notable, but is certainly as notable as many other parts of the entry [6].

   Bucketsofg: Again, Ceraurus/Ellis approved of the edit[7] and encouraged me to do more[8]

4. He gets back to the Grewal stuff here, suggesting the fact Marsden worked in Grewal's office while facing very minor charges (re-routing e-mails and sending too much candy) is "controversial" [9].

   Bucketsofg: Hardly an elegant segue, I'll admit, but it is in fact correct: all the contemporary stories treat it as controversial that Marsden, who was awaiting her day in court on the charge of criminal harassment, would have access to a Member of Parliament's office and constituent materials.

5. Here, [10], he uses a blog entry to back up a claim that Marsden has falsified her resume.

   Bucketsofg: the diff shows what Ceraurus/Ellis edited out, not what I'd edited in.

6. Most of his edits will be done in a similar, incremental but determined way. Here, he agrees to use original research from his blog on the Gurmant Grewal entry [11]. He uses this material, among other places, here: [12]. Here, he coaches Ian King on the same practice: [13]

   Bucketsofg: I'm not sure what the first diff is supposed to show--that a long-standing wikipedian welcomed me and my "expertise" on the Grewal tapes, but cautioned me against original research? That I linked to the text of an article so that people could read it in context to make sure that I had not misrepresented its contents? That IanKing had made an argument about IMDb on talk that might be easier to assess as a blog post rather than a wikipedia-talk page?

7. By February he was busy on Marsden and the entry for Ezra Levant, editor of the Western Standard, a magazine he has mocked on his own blog, www.bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com but that suffices as his source for Marsden. In the title [14], the Western Standard calls Marsden a "fraud artist", an allegation that certainly does not come from any criminal charges and is not even made in the Western Standard article. Surely that should have raised a red flag.

   Bucketsofg: The diff shows me providing bibliographical details to a pre-existing reference to the fact that the Western Standard has been critical of Marsden. There is surely no clearer evidence of the Standard's attitude towards Marsden than this article. This is the only place in the current revision that cites it.

8. Here [15] he discounts IMDB as a source for Marsden's work on the TV show 20/20, preferring instead to have the entry read as though she is a liar in that regard. But here he uses IMDB as a source on how often Marsden has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and changes "frequent" guest to "occassional" guest [16]. While IMDB is not a good enough source for Bucketsofg on something that helps Marsden's image, a blog is fine for making her look like a liar re: 20/20 [17].

   Bucketsofg: There are problems with IMDb, as was discussed at length on the talk pages here, here, here, and here. See especially this exchange.

9. Here, [18], Bucketsofg uses an anonymous source quoted in a blog to make it appear Marsden falsified her resume. Here, Bucketsofg changes "sexual harrassment" to "date rape" based on a story he clipped from a newspaper in Kitchener, Ontario (some 2,000 miles from Vancouver) and stored in his own web site[19]. (This was something I was taken to task for in the Warren Kinsella arbitration}.

   Bucketsofg: see my discussion on the Evidence page

10. Here, [20] Bucketsofg places lurid e-mail entries in the Marsden article, along with considerable sourcing for Donnelly's defence but none for Marsden.

    Bucketsofg: Marsden's explanation of the email comes in the next non-minor edit ten minutes later [21]

11. Here, he sexes it up a bit: now naughty pictures are slipped under Donnelly's door: [22].

    Bucketsofg: I'm not sure how this "sexes" anything up. In anycase, this is what Donnelly said and this is introduced by "Donnelly appealed the ruling and went public with his side of the story. He denied any … He claimed…". Marsden's explanations of all these points come in the next paragraph. (One could add that the photographer who took the pictures later told reporters that Marsden had told him that she was interested in someone who didn’t seem to reciprocate and photos might help her win him over--but this section is too long as it is.)

12. Marsden has a reason for sending Donnelly a Playboy magazine subscription, but Bucketsofg adds another quote out of context: [23].

    Bucketsofg: Again, I'm not sure what is the objection. Yes, Marsden later gave a reason--the one found in the quote, in which she admits to the subscription and explains it. Out of context? More context could be added, but it would probably make Marsden look worse: the quote is from her (later leaked) testimony to the harassment panel hearing her complaint against Donnelly; it came a couple months after Marsden had denied being behind the subscription in her response to Donnelly's complaint, her words being: "Playboy subscription (!). When I saw this item I have to admit that must have laughed for about a minute. It provided excellent comic relief to a serious situation. I can guarantee that I am not responsible for this."

13. When Ceraurus trimmed back the harassment material, Bucketsofg added more: [24].

    Bucketsofg: No, if you look at the edit summary, I revert not because of Ceraurus/Ellis' "trimming" but the fact that he had removed references with the trimming.

14. Marsden refused to go into an arbitration, a decision that Bucketsofg starts using against her here: [25], and Bucketsofg doesn't bother to give the explanation Marsden made in that article.

    Bucketsofg: The diff does not show me "using this against her", but including it as a relevant detail. If Ceraurus/Ellis had wanted to include her explanation, he could have done so then or any time since. (Ceraurus/Ellis seems unable to make up his mind whether this section has too much detail or not enough.)

15. In this edit [26], he removes the fact that the case was never adjudicated and, from at least a legal standpoint, is still undecided.

    Bucketsofg: I explain the edit on the talk page, where you can see Ceraurus/Ellis' response. Not wanting to inflame the situation then, I did not point out that this is editorializing on his part, and an editorialization that presupposes that the reconsideration of the evidence in arbitration was not relevant.

16. Many months after beginning work on the article, Bucketsofg finally includes the fact Donnelly admitted having Marsden in his apartment [27] but that fact doesn't last long in the body of the text.

    Bucketsofg: Not "many months". This edit was on Feb. 26; my first edit to Marsden was Feb. 24th; my first edit to this section was less than an hour earlier.

17. In fact, almost all of Marsden's reported defences and explanations -- at least the ones chosen by this cabal -- are found in the footnotes.

    Bucketsofg: If Ceraurus/Ellis had wanted to move the material from the footnotes into the text, no one would have stopped them. More typically, however, they were claiming that this section was too long. Moving material to the footnotes was one way to reduce the bulk.

18. Here [28], he adds Donnelly's claim that he boycotted the SFU sexual harrassment process on the advice of his lawyer. He does that again here: [29]. Bucketsofg seems prepared to accept all of Donnelly's claims at face value [30], but none of Marsden's.

    Bucketsofg: These edits are not accepting anyone's claims but repeating what is necessary for understanding the issues. That Donnelly's lawyer had objected to the proceedings and had given this advice is well corrobated. Nor is the advice inexplicable: this is what the Globe and Mail wrote in a lengthy article placing the Donnelly case in the problematic context of what university sexual harassment procedures were at the time: "Mr. Donnelly was not Ms. Marsden’s coach at SFU, the alleged harassment took place off campus, after hours and was a criminal offence rather than a civil one. That’s why Mr. Donnelly’s first lawyer wrongly advised him that the university didn’t have jurisdiction and he should withdraw from the process. Big mistake. By boycotting his employer’s disciplinary process, Mr. Donnelly has paid with his job." This is something Bourrie/Ceraurus never accepted [31], dismissing it as a "lame excuse" and something that he later tried to remove as Ellis[32].

19. For instance, a claim by Marsden that Donnelly had chosen pictures of her from her modelling portfolio is moved from the body text to a reference: [33].

    Bucketsofg: see above, no. 000.

20. Here, he adds a "warning" to Marsden from the university, sourced by a Toronto Star story selected by Bucketsofg and stored in his blog. [34].

    Bucketsofg: The material is sourced to the Star, which is Canada's largest circulation daily, and the Vancouver Sun, where it was on the front page.

21. Here [35], Bucketsofg refers to Marsden as "stridently conservative" (as opposed to the original "blunt". Note the incrementalism.

    Bucketsofg: There is no "blunt" in the original. Not the best choice of wording, clearly, and within an hour Ceraurus/Ellis had replaced it with "a conservative partisan", which is not much different.

22. It's similar to this edit [36], where he torques up the SFU decision from a virtual tie between Donnelly and Marsden to something negative about Marsden)

    Bucketsofg: If you look at the diff, I replace an unsourced description of the university's decision with a quote from the university's press release about the case.

23. and here, where a signing someone up for a subscription to Playboy is made, by the adding of the word "even", to look a little worse: [37].

    Bucketsofg A trivial mistake made while correcting the sentence fragment that Ellis' edit had left.

24. Here, he removes a humanizing factor: Marsden uses humour in her columns [38];

    Bucketsofg. Ellis seemed to have no objection at the time[39]. In any case, as I pointed out in my edit summary, this hardly belongs in the first sentence of an article.

25. Not content with these fixes to the Marsden page, Bucketsofg begins, on Feb. 28, a page on the Marsden-Donnelly harassment case[40] and within a few days has written a long article [41], and, in fact, been the only one working on it [42].

    Bucketsofg. As I explained at the time: " I started that article because in order to give a fair account of both sides of the story and in order to explore its significance and context appropriately, we needed much more space than is here." Ceraurus/Ellis approve of having a longer article on the controversy here "Don't get me wrong, a second page is a good idea".

26. As Bucketsofg works anonymously, it is impossible to know his relationship to Grewal or any other actor in Canadian politics, but there is speculation in the Canadian media that Bucketsofg is a federal Liberal operative. Bucketsofg also may be connected with Warren Kinsella.

    Bucketsofg Connected with Kinsella?! Please see WP:NPA!

27. Bucketsofg was an active participant in the very recent Warren Kinsella arbitration.

    Bucketsofg. I'm not sure why Ellis regards this as relevant.

28. Bucketsofg was a very active editor on Rachel Marsden last winter. During that edit war over the Marsden article, User:Ceraurus was permantly banned for edit warring. Bucketsofg has a pattern of provoking edit wars, documenting the misbehavior that results, then using them, via administrator notice boards, to affect bans.

    Bucketsofg. It is rather difficult to evaluate what I'm being accused of here without some diffs. But it is important to note that Ceraurus was not banned for edit warring. He was banned for using socks in reversion wars after committing to limit himself to one account [43]