Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

message: 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)
thread_title: Note from an uninvolved party

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, its not listed on the main RFM page. Thatcher131 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Thatcher131 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Tom harrison]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arthur Ellis blocked 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Protection would only be appropriate if anonymous users were trying to reinstate an unacceptable article. Fred Bauder 22:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification from December 2006 

message: Marsden-Donnelly harassment case has been undeleted after a DRV here. Rachel Marsden remains a stub. Given that the Arbcom found regarding the Rachel Marsden articles that it was "Better nothing than a hatchet job" and that the interpretation of WP:BLP which resulted in the previous state of affairs was "liberal" to the point that two named editors were "expected to conform to WP:BLP rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied", does the Arbcom consider it acceptable due weight that we have over 1,000 words on an incident involving Rachel Marsden before she achieved personal notability as a journalist and commentator (with a further 1,000 words on the incident cut after restoration but remaining in the history to be put back in at any time), and less than 200 words on the rest of her life? --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification on undeleted [[Marsden-Donnelly harassment case]] 

message: :Original discussion
 
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rachel Marsden (May 2022) 

message: ;Support
#Izno (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrator views and discussion