Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Note from uninvolved party
It should be noted that User:Arthur Ellis was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella, which has since banned him from editing Warren Kinsella or any articles about Canadian politics - including therefore Rachel Marsden - and also bars him from using socks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morwen (talk • contribs).
[edit] Note from an uninvolved party
Today (Sept. 20), Mark Bourrie's www.ottawawatch.blogspot.com site was hacked and the arbcom decision re: Warren Kinsella was linked to it in an attack against Dr. Bourrie. Something needs to be done by Wikipedia to stop dragging Wikipedia into this troll feud.142.78.190.137 15:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment by Thatcher131
Ellis is banned from editing Rachel Marsden, including the talk page. However, if he (and Marsden) have legitimate BLP concerns, there should be some means of addressing them. Note however that on September 14, Ellis filed notifications to the parties here of a mediation, rather than arbitration (he seems to have used the wrong template, and possibly been confused about the nature of the two processes, as no RFM has actually been filed). Arbitration seems premature; a content RFC, third opinion, or mediation seems in order first. Thatcher131 17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, its not listed on the main RFM page. Thatcher131 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment by User:Tom harrison
Knowing nothing about Marsden before this, I read the article. Based only on our article, a casual reader would have to conclude she is either an insane lying psycho stalker, or that our article is written by people who think she is, and have worked hard to collect and maintain material to prove it. I think it might be worth looking into how the article got that way. Tom Harrison Talk 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arthur Ellis blocked
I blocked Arthur Ellis for 12 hours for violating his previous arbitration ban as explained on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification from December 2006
Both the Rachel Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly harassment case articles have been deleted by administrators in the last day (and protected to prevent re-creatin). Some editors have argued that references to Marsden's past controversies are inappropriate for the article.
The Marsden RfA determined that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit". It also ruled that the Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly articles, in their existing state, were in violation of BLP.
Questions: (i) Do references to Marsden's past controversies inherently violate BLP, or would a fair and neutral overview be permitted? (ii) Is page deletion an appropriate remedy to this situation? CJCurrie 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
More questions: (iii) Interpretation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is often a matter of debate. May speedy deletions of Marsden-related articles be overturned through the usual channel of Deletion Review? (iv) Are we supposed to delete based solely on whether the current version of a page violates WP:BLP, or may we delete based on the existence of previous versions that have violated WP:BLP? Kla'quot 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (v) Why didn't Arbcom go ahead and delete the articles themselves as soon as the case closed? Kla'quot 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Our ultimate goal is an NPOV article on Masden and her controversies. This could be achieved by deleting the existing content and starting work on a new version, or it could be done by refining the existing pages. The ArbCom made no firm assertion of what path is the better one. However, deleting the page and protecting it against all attempts at recreation is certainly not going to help us achieve the desired goal. - SimonP 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Protection would only be appropriate if anonymous users were trying to reinstate an unacceptable article. Fred Bauder 22:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Kla'quot 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
