Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Adam Marshall

{{RFMpointer|The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.}}

; Editors involved in this dispute

1. {{user|Ghostofthelandscape}} – filing party
2. {{user|Hoary}}
3. {{user|The Drover's Wife}}

; Articles affected by this dispute

1. {{pagelinks|Adam Marshall}}

; Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Adam_Marshall

{{RFMpointer|What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.}}

; Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Should Adam Marshall be linked to the category "Australian politicians convicted of crimes" following his conviction and sentencing for a crime?

; Additional issues (added by other parties)

• The default position in the relevant jurisdiction is for a conviction to be recorded. The online syndicated article that formed the basis of most coverage at the time apparently fails to reiterate this long standing norm of the legal system.
• A section 10 spent conviction is available only by order of the court.
• Any discussion as to wikipedia's potential legal liability as a result of the Adam Marshall biography would benefit from an understanding of jurisprudence in the state of New South Wales:

SENTENCING OPTIONS

http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/traffic-law/drink-driving/mid-range-pca?gclid=CjwKEAjw9LKeBRDurOugs43jnlgSJACUXqHxGxyiLKTESfAc-GOKMGn90f4PeRpvPmqKRp6tb38oqBoCKIfw_wcB

SECTION 10

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cpa1999278/s10.html

{{reply to|Ghostofthelandscape}} I note that there is now mention of Adam Marshall's conviction in the article and that the category "Australian politicians convicted of crimes" has also been added. It seems to me that all that was needed was a reliable source. Do you agree that this resolves the dispute? Sunray (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we can discontinue this now.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

{{RFMpointer|If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.}}

1. Agree. Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Disagree. A good look at Talk:Adam Marshall will, I think, show that there is indeed a problem but that this problem is not of a kind that "mediation" is for. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

{{RFMpointer|This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.}}

• Reject. Matter resolved. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

{{Medcombox/bottom}}Sample