User:ObiterDicta/Marsden ArbCom request for clarification

Working version of request to ArbCom to clarify the following

Principles

Better nothing than a hatchet job

8) Any user may convert a grossly unbalanced biography of a living person to a stub. Any administrator may delete the article and its talk page. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style provides that biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question 1. What is meant by grossly unbalanced?

Question 2. What, specifically in terms of application of this principle, is meant by badly written?

Attack pages are subject to speedy deletion

9) A grossly unbalanced biography of a living person is considered an attack page for the purposes of speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G10.

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question 1. Read together with the previous principle, must a biography be grossly unbalanced before it is subject to speedy deletion by an administrator?

Question 2. Under what circumstances, if any, can a comprehensively sourced article be considered an attack page?

Question 3 Are you referring to biographies that are "grossly unbalanced" in relation to what reliable sources say about the person or are you saying that under some circumstances, articles must be more flattering to the person than the avaialable sources are?

Recommend removal. Under principle 8), we already ask for a definition of grossly unbalanced. Also, it is already clear that articles do not need to be more flattering to the subject, so this seems argumentative. JChap2007 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The question of whether Arbcom wants the article to be more flattering to the subject than the sources, is still unclear to me. Kla'quot 09:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Question 4 An article about a person does not have to read like a biography. There are many stylistic ways to convey that the article is the summary of news clippings and not a holistic overview of the person's life. Would a markedly unbiographical style help to fulfill this remedy?

Recommend removal. This is not a request directly related to clarifying the ruling above. ArbCom is unlikely to support a specific style or structure for an article. JChap2007 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- We're not asking them to support a specific style or structure, just asking if changing the style or structure is an avenue we could pursue to find a solution. Kla'quot 09:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Rachel Marsden

1) Rachel Marsden, in its negative form, is inconsistent with Wikipedia:biographies of living persons.

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question. What in the article was inconsistent with WP:BLP?

Biographies of living persons

2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons specifically refers to the removal of negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question. How does WP:BLP apply with respect to undue weight given to certain aspects of a person's life?

Rachel Marsden

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question 1. What were these deficiencies, other than the imbalance between negative and positive or neutral information noted below?

Question 2. What is the threshold of evidence an editor has to meet in order to establish that an article is a balanced summary of the universe of available reliable sources?

The negatively biased version

9) The typical negatively biased version of Rachel Marsden contains elaborate negative information, but very little positive or neutral information. It usually features this external link: The Strange Allure of Ms. Marsden: How does a serial stalker, convict and fraud artist end up Canada's hottest young conservative pundit? Quite easily, actually by Kevin Steel published in the Western Standard, July 11 2005. (PDF file).

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question. What standards, if any, should be used to establish how much negative vs. positive or neutral information should be used, beyond the standards in WP:RS and WP:NPOV?

Remedies

Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden

2) 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.

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question 1. Should users/administrators be advised to fix the WP:BLP problem, if solving such problem is possible with a reasonable amount of effort, in preference to reducing to a stub or deleting the article?

Question 2. What is the definition of "grossly unbalanced negative material" in relation to the harassment case article? In particular, is the definition an absolute one: there are limits to negative portrayal on Wikipedia even if it is corroborated by reliable sources, or a relative one: portrayal cannot deviate significantly from the tone used in the sources?

Question 5 Is this remedy intended to be applied if there is a BLP violation due to vandalism or tendentious editing that is reverted rapidly?

Dustbin

Question 4 If the community expresses a consensus to keep an article that is speedily deleted by an administrator under this remedy, does this finding indicate that the wishes of the community are to be overridden?

Recommend removal. That's what DRV is for. ~ trialsanderrors 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK Kla'quot 08:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Question 3. Does this ruling mean to imply that articles which relate to Rachel Marsden are subject to different content policies, and/or deletion policies, than articles which do not relate to her? If yes, please comment on the implications for the appearance of impartiality and a level playing field at Wikipedia, particularly considering that articles on a federal election, at least one politician, and several corporations could reasonably contain information relating to Rachel Marsden?

If retained, this question should be clarified and be made non-argumentative. JChap2007 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. Covered by my overarching question below ;) Kla'quot 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The overarching question

For me, the situation that JChap2007 aptly described as "intolerable" boils down to this: Is Arbcom saying that information about Marsden falls under exactly the same policies and guidelines as information about any other living person, or are they saying that additional/special policies apply to her and only to her? If it's the former, we have a large and well thought-through set of policies for content and conduct, and we have experience in using them. If it's the latter, Arbcom is basically stuck micromanaging issues along the lines of, "How long do you want this article to be?" and "Are these sources OK? They have the same tone as the one you didn't like."

Arbcom may also wish to comment in terms of recommending that certain policies or guidelines such as Wikipedia:Attack page be expanded or otherwise improved; if they need to be improved for these articles they probably need to be improved for others as well. We have many BLPs on Wikipedia that are 95% negative. I would encourage Arbcom to forego the usual terseness and give us more words to interpret: I feel many of the decisions are clue-sticks without a clue at the end of them. Kla'quot 08:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)