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)[reply]

I agree with the above assessment about dropping the SFU/Donnelly content, particularly given that none of the SFU/Donnelly related information was ever made public, as it was neither a court matter nor a public proceeding. Nor was it really that high profile, except perhaps, to the few Vancouver-based Wikipedia editors who seem intent on propagating this smear, even 10 years after the fact. This portion of the Wikipedia article relies SOLELY on media-based speculation that was sourced from (a) media articles, nearly all of which have since been retracted, as outlined in the "discussion" section of the Rachel Marsden Wikipedia article; as well as (b) one article written by an SFU business administration professor who knew nothing of the case and simply had an axe to grind with the Harassment Policy Office which had fired some of his colleagues; and (c) a single article written by my competition (a competing right-wing conservative magazine here in Canada) when they found out that I was hired by one of Canada's national newspapers...and they weren't. None of the information on the Donnelly/SFU case in this article is derived from any credible source. As such, it constitutes speculation at best and libel at worst, and I would think that an encyclopedic piece on Wikipedia would strive to achieve a higher standard than a run-of-the-mill gossip rag. Sincerely,RachelMarsden 03:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never lived outside of Ontario in my life, much less anywhere near Vancouver, and I got saturated in media coverage of the Marsden/SFU/Donnelly affair, without even trying to. So how was it not high profile, exactly?

You know, despite what "Arthur Ellis" and you would like to believe, I really don't spend any amount of time thinking about you or trying to figure out ways to make your life difficult. I may disagree with you politically, but having never met you I have no idea what you're like as a person, and I've had close friends whom I've disagreed with as strongly as I may disagree with you. Political disagreements do not automatically constitute hate or POV; they can just as easily represent playful banter between lifelong friends. The idea that I have some kind of animus against you just because I'm an NDPer simply doesn't wash; I may disagree with conservatives but that doesn't mean I hate any of you. (Okay, I'm no fan of Stephen Harper, but from what I've read neither are you.)

Nobody in this dispute either knows or cares who was or wasn't guilty of what between you and Donnelly; anybody who knows who you are already has their own opinions about you — you don't leave many people indifferent, let's put it that way — and nobody's mind is going to be changed by editorializing. What's relevant is the facts, and the fact is that there was a dispute, which got significant media coverage. The article doesn't say you did anything wrong; it states what Donnelly's allegations against you were, and then gives just as much time to what your allegations were against Donnelly. But unfortunately, whether you like it or not, this stuff is already on the public record, and Wikipedia didn't put it there.

WP policy explicitly states that properly sourced negative material stays in your article whether you like it or not. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that what you want your article to say about you is not a permissible consideration.

And you may be interested to know that I've personally toned down POV editorializing in your article. I don't know how much clearer I can be that I really don't have any interest in trying to make you look bad; as an administrator, my only interest is in ensuring that Wikipedia policy doesn't get ripped to shreds by people who want to use it as a public relations machine rather than an objective encyclopedia.

Would you recommend that Wikipedia remove any mention of Monica Lewinsky from Bill Clinton's article on the grounds that it's lurid gossip that isn't relevant to his job performance? Nah, I didn't think so. Bearcat 10:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in your world, Monica Lewinski would take up 95% of the article.209.217.119.10 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. Bearcat 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retractions, Rachel? Please. There are no wholesale retractions -- can you actually produce evidence that the stories were retracted in full? There were corrections to isolated parts of each newspaper story, and no part of the Wikipedia article is inconsistent with those corrections -- not with regards to how your gig with Grewal ended, your conditional discharge, or with regards to who approached the media in the Donnelly case. Ianking 18:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think people can decide that for themselves by reading the article. Arthur Ellis 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who started dictating how people should read the article, not me. Bearcat 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For one thing, a professor who campaigned against the sexual harassment policy brought in as a result of Marsden's case would be expected, on bias grounds, to favour Marsden, not oppose her. For another, as I've already noted elsewhere in this discussion, journalism is not a competition; you have yet to provide any viable evidence for the conclusion that Kevin Steel should somehow be viewed as a competitor of Marsden's. A competitor for what, the last free seat in the cafeteria? The last free spot on a Stephen Harper press conference list? A competitor for what? It's simply absurd and not at all NPOV to view or treat journalists as being each other's competitors; that isn't how journalism works. If it were, then no source on Marsden would ever be permissible, because it would all be written by "competitors". Bearcat 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Bearscat says at talk: Gerald Hannon, "NPOV does not mean we have to give all subjective opinions equal credibility; it means we report the actual known facts. Bearcat 00:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gerald_Hannon". Maybe Bearcat would like to apply the same zeal to protecting Marsden's reputation as he brings to Gerald Hannon. Arthur Ellis 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That happens to be exactly what I'm doing; the actual known facts in this case are that several people alleged that Marsden harassed them. The "subjective opinion" in the matter would be assumptions about her guilt or innocence; the known facts are that the allegations were made. This article, as written, does not make a single statement that constitutes a subjective opinion; it sticks to the known facts that the allegations were made. Bearcat 18:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Hannon is an admitted prostitute who has, arguably, worked for three decades to soften societal opposition to men/boy sex. Marsden, at most, got into a he-said /she- said fight over sexual harassment allegations, signed a guy up for a Playboy subscription, made many phone calls to a woman she thought was a friend, and re-routed the e-mails of a guy who dumped her. Yet Bearcat brings up the spectre of libel on Hannon's talk page, while torquing (with his friends) the Marsden article. His POV is proven. Let's move on. Arthur Ellis 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very inclusion of the word "arguably" in your assessment of Gerald Hannon's work shows that you're conflating the known facts with POV opinion — the fact is that Hannon is not an endorser of man/boy sex; he's an endorser of "social conservatives need to stop conflating pedophilia with homosexuality", who has been misrepresented as an endorser of pedophilia because he writes about pedophilia objectively rather than with the visceral gut-level revulsion that most people expect of writing that in any way touches upon the topic. And for the record, I don't personally like Gerald Hannon; I think the way he conducted himself in that whole affair exacerbated the controversy tremendously. But I don't have much respect for those who misrepresented the nature of his writing, either, and there's no place in either article for my personal opinions of the subjects. The point is, however, that both Hannon's and Marsden's articles, as written, stick to the known facts and avoid POV editorializing. And by the by, the only person in this entire debate who's in any way a friend of mine is Samaritan, he whom you credit elsewhere in this debate as one of the "softeners" (and even he never once supported eliminating any mention of the allegations in question.) Bearcat 19:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How exactly does Kevin Steel, the author of the Western Standard article in question, qualify as a competitor of Rachel's? Again, you're making a statement with an underlying tone of "it's true because I say so"; you need to cite specific reasons for viewing him that way. Journalists are not automatically each other's competitors just because they're both journalists. And not a single source quoted in the article is attributed to a direct participant in any of the Marsden allegations. Which leaves us with special interest groups, and other than the same old "because I say so" trick, you still have yet to prove that the Fraser Institute's objectivity on Marsden was somehow compromised. And beyond all that, you're proposing that Wikipedia institute a policy which (a) it already has, and (b) you have yet to prove that the article in dispute is in any way contravening. Bearcat 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis is indeed correct. The Western Standard is, in fact, my direct competition. I have a larger readership than they do, a much higher US profile (by virtue of my work for Fox News, the New York Post and United Press International, and was hired by one of Canada's two national newspapers while they were all overlooked for the job. In fact, it was my hiring into that job that resulted in the Western Standard article (a fact that is quite clear when you read the article itself and the author focuses on my new job). Sincerely, RachelMarsden 03:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're personally in competition with an entire magazine? Wowza. Bearcat 10:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to ask Bearcat and Bucketsofg if they have ever used the Western Standard and/or the Fraser Institute as sources on any other article they've edited (or find one time that I have used either, for that matter). I'll drop the whole thing if they can each produce one entry from the hundreds and hundreds they've worked on. As well, Bucketsofg mocks the Fraser Institute on his Bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com blog. Can't have it both ways.Arthur Ellis 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that outside of my role as an administrator, the vast majority of the writing I contribute to Wikipedia involves arts topics (music, literature, media), there isn't a place for Western Standard or the Fraser Institute as a source in most of what I do. A more germane question would be whether I've ever removed those as sources when other people have added them; the answer to that is no, though I have occasionally rewritten POV editorializing that cited those sources' opinions as fact. And on the question of whether I would use them as sources if they were relevant to a topic I was writing about, it would rather depend on whether the citation in question was a known fact or a POV political opinion, not on whether or not I agree with them in principle. Bearcat 19:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this muddled answer (I don't write on Wikipedia and never have. I've always been an admin) and Bucketsofg's silence = "no".209.217.119.10 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get "I don't write on Wikipedia and never have" out of what I actually said, which is "the vast majority of the writing I contribute to Wikipedia involves arts topics"? Bearcat 17:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The tone of your posts betrays your POV. Arthur Ellis 01:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "Because I say so. Never mind that I can't cite an actual example of how this is true." Bearcat 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Publicly laid" allegations do not prove a person has been "controversial".Arthur Ellis 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. But the fact that she's been controversial proves that she's been controversial. Bearcat 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By this standard, I could start a blog or a newsletter that could be used to accuse John Doe, Esq. of being a liar and a fool, and it would be a legitimate source for Wikipedia.Arthur Ellis 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; your blog would have to qualify as a notable media outlet by Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Bearcat 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

CBC Documentary

1)The CBC documentary "Sticks and Stones" stuff should go. What makes the CBC think Marsden is an expert on the adversarial US cable news punditry system? Why is the fact that she told them to take a hike when they wanted to dredge up the SFY harassment case notable?Arthur Ellis 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What makes it notable is the fact that she told them to take a hike two minutes after telling them that she had a right to criticize other people's personal lives. Rachel Marsden can't have it both ways; if other people's personal lives are fair game for her commentary, then her personal life is fair game for journalists; if her personal life "isn't relevant to what she does", then neither are the personal lives of those she criticizes. Bearcat 19:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I fail to see why one, single line out of a smear documentary by the most left-leaning media entity in Canadian journalism merits inclusion in a personal biography that's supposedly of encyclopedic calibre, when I do television interviews several times every week. Perhaps that one line may seem important to someone who has a political or personal axe to grind, but to the average person, I'm pretty certain that it wouldn't. Why not go through all of my hundreds of columns and television interviews and radio shows and pick out more than just that one line which (unsurprisingly, given the nature of what has transpired here on Wikipedia) relates only to my personal life? I can't help but notice that there isn't a single line in the entire Wikipedia entry that criticizes or attempts to quote any of my actual work. The obsession with some Wikipedia editors/participants with my sex and/or personal life has become quite tedious. Although my husband finds it rather amusing. Sincerely, RachelMarsden 03:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the CBC as left-leaning, and/or questioning its credibility on that basis, is your POV; it is not an objective assessment that Wikipedia can apply in evaluating the legitimacy of a source. And by the by, as Canadian journalism goes, I could name you a dozen media outlets more left-leaning than the CBC right off the top of my head. If anything, the CBC's dominant ideology is complacency, not "leftism".
The obsession with some Wikipedia editors/participants with my sex and/or personal life has become quite tedious. Not nearly as tedious as your continued baseless assertions that any mention of the matter whatsoever reflects some kind of unhealthy and/or stalkerish obsession with your sex life. You'd do well to quit the ad hominem attacks and the amateur psychoanalysis and stick to what you're good at.
The fact remains that in that quote, you appear to hold people to a double standard; their personal lives are fair game for you, but yours is off limits. The "do as I say, not as I do" approach doesn't generally endow people with a whole lot of moral authority, in case you didn't know that. Bearcat 09:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Keep digging, Bearcat, Are you sure you aren't a Boorie/Marsden sock?209.217.119.10 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Digging"? And yes, I'm sure I'm not a sockpuppet. Bearcat 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've done nothing to deserve this, I must point out. And neither has Buckets. Bearcat 22:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Proposed by Arthur Ellis 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why ban me? I've fought like hell to make this thing NPOV and encyclopedic, to the point where I had to scratch and claw my way to a Request for Arbitration after my attempts to have mediation were dismissed out of hand.Arthur Ellis 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've continually contravened Wikipedia policy (3RR, sockpuppet, etc.) in order to enforce your version of what constitutes an NPOV and encyclopedic entry, in defiance of the fact that a significant number of people disagree with your reading of those concepts on Wikipedia. In fact, a dozen or more neutral parties have reviewed the article over the past several months, and not a single person who wasn't you or Rachel herself has yet come down in favour of your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Bearcat 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Marsden is neither a politician, nor is she a blogger.Arthur Ellis 19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where does anybody say or imply that she is a politician or a blogger? Bearcat 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis is already banned from editing the Rachel Marsden entry. Geedubber 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you present some diffs on the evidence page for why I should be banned. Geedubber 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please present some evidence that I've edited the article in a malicious or destructive manner, introduced false information, or anything else beyond simply reverting your blanking of verifiable, relevant information.Ianking 18:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Show some evidence that the editors you've named actually do have some sort of bias or vendetta against Marsden, and that their editing reflects this bias. Simply saying that it's so isn't enough. Ianking 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm genuinely at a loss with regards to what comments on the talk page Arthur Ellis views as libellous or POV. Bearcat 18:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Insults do not help your case. None of the biased admins has ever addressed rating of this article as B (substandard), nor would they even listen to Jimbo Wales. All of the softening of this dreadful article were done by Samaritan, Ceraurus and me. I will be posting links soon (when I have a couple of hours to waste) to choice versions that were protected by Bearcat, Bucketsofg and Homeontherange.Arthur Ellis 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere on Wikipedia has anybody posted any indication that the article was given a B rating because it contained inappropriate allegations; currently, articles rated as B-class include Michelangelo, Matthew Shepard, Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, Luxembourg, Homer Simpson and York, Pennsylvania, among others. There are a lot of factors that go into a quality rating, including length and depth, and the article's rating could equally be improved by expanding the allegations rather than eliminating them. Nor has Jimbo said anything about the current version of the article; he criticized the version that existed six months ago, and his criticism did not include any suggestion that all mention of the allegations had to be removed; the only issue he cited in his comments on the article was a question about how her French language skills were characterized. You're misrepresenting what he actually said; he has never spoken either in favour of or against discussing the allegations under dispute here. And I have at no time protected any version of the article that was inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. (Oh, and incidentally, Samaritan, whom I know personally, is an NDP member, so I'm most curious to know how NDP membership automatically disqualifies me from editing this article but not him.) Bearcat 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Verifiability, not truth

Not all published sources are good sources

Template

Template

CBC Documentary

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Prior case

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion