Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Proposed decision

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Biographies of living persons

1) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article

2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Not all published sources are good sources

3} Biased sources may not be reliable.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Good faith acceptance of references

4) References may be made to sources which are not available online, provided they are available in libraries or a data-bases such as Lexis-Nexis. In the absence of evidence of mis-citation, editors' citations of such material is presumed to be sound.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral Point of View

5) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Appropriate use of copyrighted material

6) Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others, a policy, provides that the information in copyrighted works, if properly cited, may be included in Wikipedia. This policy does not continence copying of the copyright work, only use of the information contained in it.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Linking to copyrighted works

7) Wikipedia:Citing sources, a style guide, provides that if material from a copyrighted work is used in an article, the original source should be cited, with any intermediate source noted. However, if the intermediate source constitutes a copyright violation, it should not be linked to, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, a policy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rachel Marsden

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Arthur Ellis banned from articles which relate to Canadian politics

3) In an earlier arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis, closed September 18, 2006, Arthur Ellis was banned from editing articles which relate to Canadian politics, with the exception of the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Should he violate the ban, any administrator is authorized to ban him for an appropriate period of time.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Arthur Ellis has violated a ban on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics

4) In violation of the ban on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics imposed in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis, Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has extensively edited Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and filed this arbitration request.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rachel Marsden

5) Rachel_Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a long troubled history. Despite a call by Rachel Marsden to Jimbo and efforts to bring the article up to reasonable standards, problems persist. Rachel Marsden has requested its removal.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

6) Marsden-Donnelly harassment case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by Bucketsofg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on February 26, 2006 [1]. In its present form it suffers from many of the same deficiencies as Rachel Marsden.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bearcat and Bucketsofg

7) Bearcat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), contesting the issue with Arthur Ellis, has maintained that the existing version of Rachel Marsden does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons reverting with the comment "rv; the removed material does *not* fail BLP as it's all carefully sourced and doesn't make any POV claims that exceed what's supported by the sources" "rv; article does NOT fail BLP" "no, it does not; any further removal of properly sourced material from this article will be grounds for immediate editblocking". He was joined by Bucketsofg "revert to Bearcat" "revert (present article conforms to BLP-policy)" [2]. Bearcat [3]. Bearcat then protected the article in its negative form [4].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Arthur Ellis

8) Although he was violating a ban on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics, Arthur Ellis's edits to Rachel Marsden and his talk page comments conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bucketofsg's administrative abuse

10) Bucketsofg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who has been actively involved in editing Rachel Marsden and in edit warring with ArthurEllis, has inappropriately used his administrative tools to block ArthurEllis' IP, in enforcement of his prior Arbitration Committee restrictions, numerous times despite his involvement in the conflict (see log), as well as for protection of many involved pages including Rachel Marsden [5] (twice), User:Craigleithian [6], User:Ceraurus [7], Talk:Rachel Marsden [8], Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Proposed decision [9], User:Arthur Ellis [10], Hot Nasties [11], and Marsden-Donnelly harassment case [12].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Links to violations of copyright to be removed

1) Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, articles should not link to copies of press reports archived on any site in violation of copyright. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Intermediate sources: State where you got it, citations should state the original source (i.e. the LA Times) and the intermediate source (i.e. "as retrieved from LexisNexis on October 16, 2006").

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bearcat and Bucketsofg

3) Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Arthur Ellis blocked for 1 day

4) Having violated the ban imposed by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics, Arthur Ellis is blocked for 1 day. This nominal block for a serious offense reflects his misunderstanding of the scope of the ban.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. He knew it was a vioolation of the ban. [13] and [14]. If not, then surely after his first block he knew, so the second, third, and fourth blocks for editing Rachel Marsden...? Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Insufficient. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not obviously sufficient. Charles Matthews 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is quite sensitive to criticism. Fred Bauder 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis banned for one month

5) For violation of his previously imposed article ban, as well as edit warring, block evasion, and sockpuppety, Arthur Ellis is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

Support:
  1. This would seem light given his long log of blocks since the last arbitration, very recently. (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans). Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too harsh Fred Bauder 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Bucketsofg desysopped

6) For misuse of his administrative tools, Bucketsofg is desysopped.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very important to involve other admins, not taking it all on yourself, and particularly in relation with page protections, which are rightly adjudged sensitive matters. Charles Matthews 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A caution is certainly in order, but desysopping is too much. SimonP 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too much. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

As of 21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC), all pass except Bucketofsg's administrative abuse (4-3), Arthur Ellis blocked for 1 day (a one-month ban passes) and Bucketsofg desysopped (2-4). Thatcher131

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. move to close ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 14:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037705848"