User talk:ObiterDicta/Marsden ArbCom request for clarification

My version

Responding to a request on my talk page. If the article is undeleted, I was already planning on making a request for clarification which would simply read:

"Given that the Arbcom found regarding the Rachel Marsden articles that it was "Better nothing than a hatchet job" and that "Attack pages are subject to speedy deletion", does the Arbcom consider it acceptable that we have 2,191 words on an incident involving Rachel Marsden before she achieved personal notability as a journalist and commentator, and 180 words on the rest of her life?"

Above word counts include in-line citations, formatting etc. because I'm too lazy to remove them, but exclude everything after the main article, i.e. external links, <references/> and categories.

I think the request as it stands is far too long and asks a lot of questions to which the answer is bleeding obvious (e.g. "What in the article was inconsistent with WP:BLP"). In total it appears to be saying "The article was not inconsistent with WP:BLP" only dressing it up as a question by adding 'What in' to the beginning, deleting the 'not' and sticking a question mark at the end. If a request is made in this form - a long, pettifogging appeal weaselly pretending to be a request for clarification, I'll just make my own request separately. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until the deletion review is closed in any event, as this will otherwise look like an attempt to thwart it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with waiting for DRV to close; I have a feeling this is going to be a long-term problem. Editors are going to keep creating what they think is an unbiased article and it's going to keep getting deleted by those who think it's biased.

In response to Sam, I wrote that particular question and I was the one who wanted the entire article salted for a year. It's clear to me we won't be able to create a good, stable article on this right now and we don't need to have one. On the other hand, policy and guidelines do not clearly prohibit creating an article, as there are numerous reliable sources on this matter. So the argument wil continue saeculum saeculorum.

No one took me up on the salt proposal, though, so I look at trying to clarify the principles under which material written about Rachel Marsden is written as plan B. I'm sorry you think there are too many questions or that it is biased. The ArbCom's decision contained numerous principles that I felt needed clarification. By all means make a separate request if you want. JChap2007 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JChap2007, if the deletion is confirmed by deletion review, the page will be protected against recreation, so constant creation/deletion won't be an issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But those who want an article will argue that the DRV did not establish that the article should be protected against creation, so we get the added bonus of wheel-warring (not that I'm an admin or anything, that's between y'all...). JChap2007 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's left to admins to decide whether to protect articles against recreation, once deletion is confirmed; deletion review doesn't decide that. There's no reason to believe there would be wheel warring. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that there were admins on both sides of this. JChap2007 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close now done

The close was done, at AFD as there was no consensus to go anywhere else. I suggest you both think about rewording the clarification question you were considering to reflect 1) the new title and 2) that about 50% of the article was cut. GRBerry 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I changed the request to reflect that the material is now 10-1 rather than 20-1. Unless someone reverts, of course. I don't see the relevance of the title. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terseness and vagueness

As I wrote the findings in question, I suppose I should make at least a general response. The problem with Rachel Marsden is that there is little positive information (or even writing by her) which can be used to make the article more or less balanced if an extensive blow by blow account of the negative drama is included. This is the usual problem with subjects whose only notable media coverage consists of reporting on some scandal. Much of the negative material consists of mutual allegations which were exchanged. Publication of those allegations in newspapers does not change their essential nature, personal views. The point is, if there is to be an article, some effort should be made to present a positive side of the subject in addition to reporting on past scandals. Fred Bauder 23:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I understand it was a difficult case and I agree. By the way, I also agree with what you said on Jimbo's talk page about the whole Essjay mess. Compassion is a virtue that some of our friends here seem to have forgotten. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred for coming over here and taking the time to respond. I disagree with your summary of what the negative material consists of. Four people have made separate allegations that R.M. harassed them. In only one of those cases were the allegations mutual. The most recent case culminated in a full police investigation, physical evidence, Marsden's guilty plea, a statement of facts that was agreed to by the prosecution and the defence, and a conditional discharge. If this amount of tangibility constitutes an "essential nature" of "personal views" then I wonder what your definition of a fact is.

Do you understand that a conditional discharge requires a finding by the court that the defendant is guilty? Editors have tried to explain it to you for over a year.[1] In the Arbcom workshop [2] you compare it to a deferred prosecution. The more correct analogy is not deferred prosecution, but deferred judgement.

I agree with your statement that there is little positive information. Everyone agrees on that, but at the same time, you seem to imply that effort has not been made to find verifiable positive information. Effort has been made, and if the effort were to be multiplied a hundredfold, editors still would not be able to find something that does not exist.

We have many articles on people for whom most independent sources focus on their roles in scandals or crimes. This is the only article I know of whose editors are blamed for the sources' lack of positive information. Our requirements are to report in a respectful, non-salacious tone, to use only the very best sources, to fairly represent all significant points of view, and to have solid encyclopedic reasons for the inclusion of any sensitive personal information. In my opinion, the version rewritten by Thatcher131 and speedied by Tom Harrison is the closest we've gotten to that. I agree with everyone here that it's a very tough case. It's just that I would rather have seen this resolved through calm discussion of the sources than by fiat from Arbcom. Kla'quot 05:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]