Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Arthur Ellis (talk | contribs) |
Arthur Ellis (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
:::This statement is misleading. The article relies on a selection of anti-Marsden clippings, the [[Fraser Institute]] report, and the [[Western Standard]] article, along with one hostile TV interview. [[User:Bearcat]] barely addresses the newspaper article issue and chooses to ignore the rest, which is rather typical of his selective use of sources. Arthur Ellis |
:::This statement is misleading. The article relies on a selection of anti-Marsden clippings, the [[Fraser Institute]] report, and the [[Western Standard]] article, along with one hostile TV interview. [[User:Bearcat]] barely addresses the newspaper article issue and chooses to ignore the rest, which is rather typical of his selective use of sources. Arthur Ellis |
||
::::I was specifically addressing the false claim that the article relied on retracted or "corrected" sources; not a single fact cited in the article relies on a source statement that has ever been retracted or "corrected". And for the record, claiming that the [[Fraser Institute]] and/or the [[Western Standard]] are discredited sources ''because you say so'' is pretty well an organizational variant of an [[ad hominem]] attack; you'd also be the first self-declared conservative in history to claim that the Fraser Institute could ever be a non-credible source on anything whatsoever. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 22:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
::::I was specifically addressing the false claim that the article relied on retracted or "corrected" sources; not a single fact cited in the article relies on a source statement that has ever been retracted or "corrected". And for the record, claiming that the [[Fraser Institute]] and/or the [[Western Standard]] are discredited sources ''because you say so'' is pretty well an organizational variant of an [[ad hominem]] attack; you'd also be the first self-declared conservative in history to claim that the Fraser Institute could ever be a non-credible source on anything whatsoever. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 22:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::::I have explained several times why the Fraser Institute report and the Western Standard article are not solid sources. You choose not to address the issues. Here they are again: 1. The Fraser Institute article was written by a Simon Fraser professor who campaigned against the sexual harassment system; and 2. The Western Standard article was written and published by Marsden's competitors in the conservative punditry business. I do not believe the Fraser Institute and the Western Standard operate at a level of scholarship that I would feel comfortable with were I being sued for libel. That's my threshold when dealing with material involving living people.[[User: |
:::::I have explained several times why the Fraser Institute report and the Western Standard article are not solid sources. You choose not to address the issues. Here they are again: 1. The Fraser Institute article was written by a Simon Fraser professor who campaigned against the sexual harassment system; and 2. The Western Standard article was written and published by Marsden's competitors in the conservative punditry business. I do not believe the Fraser Institute and the Western Standard operate at a level of scholarship that I would feel comfortable with were I being sued for libel. That's my threshold when dealing with material involving living people.[[User:Arthur Ellis|Arthur Ellis]] 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
===Not all published sources are good sources=== |
===Not all published sources are good sources=== |
||
Revision as of 01:01, 27 September 2006
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1) The Rachel Marsden entry be edited to remove all allegations more than five years old that have not been adjudicated by a court or tribunal.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- "Adjudicated by a court or tribunal" is not the standard for inclusion of any mention of a criminal allegation whatsoever — it's the standard by which one determines whether a criminal allegation is to be treated as a proven fact or as an allegation, and the article is already quite clear about maintaining the distinction between an allegation and a conviction. Whether Rachel likes it or not, the simple reality is that the fact that such allegations were made, regardless of their status in court, is a significant chunk of what she's notable for in the first place — even if she hadn't gone on to become a newspaper columnist and Fox News pundit, she would still merit a Wikipedia article just for the Donnelly case alone. Any encyclopedia article on Rachel Marsden that didn't mention this stuff would be essentially worthless.
- It is also necessary to note that Mark Bourrie and his sock drawer have never previously proposed "adjudicated by a court or tribunal" as the standard for inclusion; in his past edits to the article, he consistently removed even the allegation that was adjudicated in a court of law. So it's a nice little principle, but it hasn't been the core of the dispute. Bearcat 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- The Donnelly case is a 10-year-old sexual harassment case that was never adjudicated. Its noteworthiness in 2006 is pretty questionable. The other "allegations" would not, on their own, be encyclopedia material about anyone. The fact that the claims were not adjudicated was inclused in an edit but removed from the article by the Bucketsofg/Bearcat/Geedubber cabal.Arthur Ellis 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- False; the fact that the other claims were not adjudicated in a court of law is explicitly noted in the article as currently written. The fact that the Donnelly case didn't go to court does not make it non-notable; it was national news, singlehandedly made Marsden a household name in Canada, and directly led the university to radically revise its entire sexual harassment policy. It's about as far from questionable noteworthiness as one can get. Bearcat 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's an old story, and one that never, to my satisfaction, has been fully explained. She is not a household world in Canada. She might have some notoriety at her old university and among some Canadian academics, but since neither side was proven to be telling the truth or lying, the article and related articles unfairly portray Marsden as a liar and a stalker, and Donnelly as the innocent party. Even, just reading the material used to source this article, a fair-minded person could come to the conclusion that, at most, the vindication he received occured because of O'Hagan's unprofessionalism. Arthur Ellis.
- It may be an old story, but it's a notable one. And as written, the article quite explicitly avoids taking sides regarding what happened between Marsden and Donnelly; it casts neither party as either the guilty or the innocent one, but simply notes what actually happened as a result of the investigation. Be it the right thing or the wrong thing, what happened is what happened and it's not for Wikipedia to cast judgement on that. And the very next section of the article quite explicitly discusses how O'Hagan crossed professional boundaries in investigating the case. Far from discrediting Marsden, the article as written quite explicitly allows for the possibility that the allegations against her were not based in fact, but the fact that the allegations were made, got considerable media coverage, and are quite well known — Marsden is most certainly not known only to academics and people associated with SFU — makes them notable regardless of their adjudication status. The only thing the article can't do is claim that her guilt or innocence has been legally determined in cases where it hasn't...and guess what? The article doesn't do that; as written, it leaves the possibility of her innocence quite explicitly open. Bearcat 23:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think people can decide that for themselves by reading the article. Arthur Ellis 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- It may be an old story, but it's a notable one. And as written, the article quite explicitly avoids taking sides regarding what happened between Marsden and Donnelly; it casts neither party as either the guilty or the innocent one, but simply notes what actually happened as a result of the investigation. Be it the right thing or the wrong thing, what happened is what happened and it's not for Wikipedia to cast judgement on that. And the very next section of the article quite explicitly discusses how O'Hagan crossed professional boundaries in investigating the case. Far from discrediting Marsden, the article as written quite explicitly allows for the possibility that the allegations against her were not based in fact, but the fact that the allegations were made, got considerable media coverage, and are quite well known — Marsden is most certainly not known only to academics and people associated with SFU — makes them notable regardless of their adjudication status. The only thing the article can't do is claim that her guilt or innocence has been legally determined in cases where it hasn't...and guess what? The article doesn't do that; as written, it leaves the possibility of her innocence quite explicitly open. Bearcat 23:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's an old story, and one that never, to my satisfaction, has been fully explained. She is not a household world in Canada. She might have some notoriety at her old university and among some Canadian academics, but since neither side was proven to be telling the truth or lying, the article and related articles unfairly portray Marsden as a liar and a stalker, and Donnelly as the innocent party. Even, just reading the material used to source this article, a fair-minded person could come to the conclusion that, at most, the vindication he received occured because of O'Hagan's unprofessionalism. Arthur Ellis.
- False; the fact that the other claims were not adjudicated in a court of law is explicitly noted in the article as currently written. The fact that the Donnelly case didn't go to court does not make it non-notable; it was national news, singlehandedly made Marsden a household name in Canada, and directly led the university to radically revise its entire sexual harassment policy. It's about as far from questionable noteworthiness as one can get. Bearcat 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Donnelly case is a 10-year-old sexual harassment case that was never adjudicated. Its noteworthiness in 2006 is pretty questionable. The other "allegations" would not, on their own, be encyclopedia material about anyone. The fact that the claims were not adjudicated was inclused in an edit but removed from the article by the Bucketsofg/Bearcat/Geedubber cabal.Arthur Ellis 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
- All allegations against Rachel Marsden that have not been adjudicated by a court of law or legally-constituted tribunal be removed from the entry. Arthur Ellis 19:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Proposed principles
Verifiability, not truth
1) Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_not_truth states that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth."
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed Geedubber 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Sources in this instance were not reliable: mainly some selected news reports (some of which were corrected); a report from a "think tank", written by someone with a vested interest (a prof at the university where Marsden complained of sexual harassment); and a magazine article written by a competitor. Arthur Ellis 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- One retracted statement in an article does not invalidate the whole article as a source; it invalidates the retracted statement as a source. Not a single sentence in the article relies on a statement that any media outlet has retracted when writing about Marsden. Again: the article does not claim that she was convicted of anything she hasn't been convicted of; it merely notes the indisputable fact that the allegations were made. Bearcat 21:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- This statement is misleading. The article relies on a selection of anti-Marsden clippings, the Fraser Institute report, and the Western Standard article, along with one hostile TV interview. User:Bearcat barely addresses the newspaper article issue and chooses to ignore the rest, which is rather typical of his selective use of sources. Arthur Ellis
- I was specifically addressing the false claim that the article relied on retracted or "corrected" sources; not a single fact cited in the article relies on a source statement that has ever been retracted or "corrected". And for the record, claiming that the Fraser Institute and/or the Western Standard are discredited sources because you say so is pretty well an organizational variant of an ad hominem attack; you'd also be the first self-declared conservative in history to claim that the Fraser Institute could ever be a non-credible source on anything whatsoever. Bearcat 22:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have explained several times why the Fraser Institute report and the Western Standard article are not solid sources. You choose not to address the issues. Here they are again: 1. The Fraser Institute article was written by a Simon Fraser professor who campaigned against the sexual harassment system; and 2. The Western Standard article was written and published by Marsden's competitors in the conservative punditry business. I do not believe the Fraser Institute and the Western Standard operate at a level of scholarship that I would feel comfortable with were I being sued for libel. That's my threshold when dealing with material involving living people.Arthur Ellis 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was specifically addressing the false claim that the article relied on retracted or "corrected" sources; not a single fact cited in the article relies on a source statement that has ever been retracted or "corrected". And for the record, claiming that the Fraser Institute and/or the Western Standard are discredited sources because you say so is pretty well an organizational variant of an ad hominem attack; you'd also be the first self-declared conservative in history to claim that the Fraser Institute could ever be a non-credible source on anything whatsoever. Bearcat 22:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sources in this instance were not reliable: mainly some selected news reports (some of which were corrected); a report from a "think tank", written by someone with a vested interest (a prof at the university where Marsden complained of sexual harassment); and a magazine article written by a competitor. Arthur Ellis 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Not all published sources are good sources
1) Sources that show signs of bias, i.e. written by participants in an event, by special interest groups, and by competitors of the subject involved should be carefully weighed for bias. Proposed by Arthur Ellis 17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) Wikipedia editors should not bring their political campaigns and/or biases to an editing debate. Admins who are part of an ongoing political campaign (i.e. Bucketsofg with his bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com site) should refrain from any involvement in editing Wikipedia entries related to the people involved in their campaign.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed by Arthur Ellis 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- The onus is on Arthur Ellis to prove that any editor involved in this dispute has brought their own political biases into the matter by citing specific examples of biased editing. As it stands, this is a purely ad hominem argument which is impossible to disprove: Buckets is biased because he's Buckets, I'm biased because I have an NDP userbox on my userpage, and pay no attention to the fact that there isn't a single edit by either of us anywhere in the article that has ever been claimed to be "biased" by anyone whose surname wasn't Marsden or Bourrie. Also, this line of attack is especially rich coming from somebody who's had an RFA against him for doing the very thing to other articles that he decries in this case. Bearcat 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Bucketsofg has a personal bias and POV, proven by his owenership of the anonymous Bucketsofg site, which he operated before he brought his campaign to Wikipedia. User:Bearcat's POV is obvious to anyone who reads the article discussion pages and the co0mments he posted in his edit summaries (i.e. "if there was a category for bullshit artists..."). Marsden certainly has the right to comment and complain about this article. In fact, she has shown considerable restraint, considering this mess is the first thing that comes up when you google "Rachel Marsden". As for the Bourrie fixation, I suppose he was the second gunman in the JFK assissination, toon. Arthur Ellis.
- Wikipedia does not prohibit expressing an opinion on a talk page; it prohibits letting your opinions influence your edits to the article itself. You simply cannot point to a single time when either Buckets or I inserted a personal opinion into the article, because there haven't been any such examples, which is why you're stuck on this ad hominem thing you still haven't gotten off of. Oh, and let's never mind the fact that Gurmant Grewal actually screwed up and did something that backfired and left him discredited; naturally that reflects badly on Buckets rather than on Grewal! Blame the messenger!
- And furthermore, I have never, ever made a single comment on the article's talk page, either positive or negative, about Marsden as a person; my comments on the talk page have been purely on the level of Wikipedia policy. I made one ill-advised edit summary once in the article's entire history, I admit — and it was attached to an edit in which all I did was add her to a Canadian occupational category, which is probably the single least open-to-bias thing any Wikipedia editor could possibly do to an article. And, for that matter, it was a joke in which I explicitly acknowledged the difference between what I might think of her personally and what I could actually insert into an article about her — I'm most certainly not known around Wikipedia as a person who has a problem separating those two things. As I've pointed out to you before, I've even had social conservatives come to me to NPOV biographies of gay activists — and I'm an openly gay man.
- As for the Bourrie "fixation", nobody asserted anything about the JFK assassination...but if you're admitting some kind of involvement with that comment, then that's really quite fascinating for you. Bearcat 22:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed by Arthur Ellis 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {Old allegations should not be treated as proven facts and should not be proof of notability}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed Arthur Ellis 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- The article as written does not treat a single unproven allegation as a proven fact; it treats unproven allegations as unproven allegations and proven facts as proven facts. Bearcat 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, it strings a collection of unproven allegations together to try to discredit a conservative political columnist. It is a hatchet job. Arthur Ellis.
- No, it discusses a series of allegations that were publicly laid against her in order to acknowledge that she's been controversial and has had allegations publicly laid against her. There's a difference there. Bearcat 22:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, it strings a collection of unproven allegations together to try to discredit a conservative political columnist. It is a hatchet job. Arthur Ellis.
- The article as written does not treat a single unproven allegation as a proven fact; it treats unproven allegations as unproven allegations and proven facts as proven facts. Bearcat 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed Arthur Ellis 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Prior case
1) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Note Fred Bauder 02:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1)Bearcat and Bucketsofg should lose their Wikipedia administrator status for at least one year.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed Arthur Ellis 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've done nothing to deserve this, I must point out. And neither has Buckets. Bearcat 22:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed Arthur Ellis 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) Bearcat, Bucketsofg, Geedubber and Ian King should be barred from editing the Rachel Marsden article.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Prtooposed by Arthur Ellis 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Any such ban should also include Arthur Ellis, his sock puppets, and the anon IP numbers that have occasionally asserted themselves to be either Rachel herself or Rachel's sister. To be perfectly frank, I'd be more than happy to never have to deal with this saga again — but any ban that included me or Buckets, but not Ellis and his sock drawer, would be rather blatantly missing the point. Bearcat 22:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) The Rachel Marsden entry whould be re-written by somone appointed by the arbitrators and who comes to the task with no bias. Preferably, this person should not be a Canadian.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed by Arthur Ellis 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1)The talk page and archived talk pages of Rachel Marsden should be edited to remove libel and POV discussions about her.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed by Arthur Ellis 19:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons should trump the three revert rule.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed by Arthur Ellis 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- BLP does trump 3RR when BLP is being contravened; the article as written is not a BLP contravention and thus does not qualify for any exemption from standard policy. Through this entire dispute, Bourrie/Ellis has simply continued to assert that his edits were in keeping with BLP, no matter how many times people have told him that he was misreading (or deliberately distorting?) that policy. In this, he's resembled nothing so much as a five-year-old boy babbling "la-la-la-la, I can't hear you!" while sticking his fingers in his ears. Bearcat 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed by Arthur Ellis 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: