Jump to content

Talk:André Marin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible contradiction

[edit]

The article states that Marin has pushed to have his mandate expanded to include the MUSH sector. But in the list of accomplishments, it lists several investigations he's conducted into municipal bodies. Could someone clarify this? It appears he already has at least some investigative power over municipalities (Government by Stealth, e.g.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.67.135 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Office of the Ontario Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the MUSH sector, except for complaints about closed municipal meetings. (Please see the Ombudsman Act [1] (s.2.1-2.6) for details about closed-meeting jurisdiction.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abursey (talk • contribs)

POV

[edit]

There is way too much WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE focus on the twitter controversy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS. This is also not a place for soapboxing or to right great wrongs. Please tone things down, and keep them high level. The twitter thing is ugly and should be discussed, but WP:NPOV, please. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an actual council ruling on what's basically the same sort of thing, except in a smaller, richer offline publication. Not suggesting we use the same law here, just something to ponder. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

There also appears to be COI editing going on here, per the tags I have placed on the article itself and here. Not pretty. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No COI on my end, two COI already dealt with, but I'm currently hounded by ONE editor for accusations of COI myself. Strangley enough, they have refused to acknolwedge the fact that COI has previously been dealt with, who the editors were and what the relationship was, important to note this is over. As a result, they have become disruptive at a point when the article had finally come together. Looks like someone has an agenda and some axe to grind. Going to keep editing and ignore that particular individual but will talk to admins who can keep things calm. CheckersBoard (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

review

[edit]

I started to carefully review this article, and the sourcing... sucks. Who's Who is pretty lame; ref #2 is an obscure book that is not available on line and that i would reckon few libraries have (totally OK, but not a great way to go for someone controversial), source #3 is a broken link; source #4 is the general website and while something in that website may support the content, this source does verify the content; source #5 doesn't support the content but is instead some random report produced by the office. Stepping back, a bunch of sources used are press releases from the office, and those are not independent and should be avoided like the plague.

The best sources for Wikipedia content for controversial subjects are independent - like articles from serious newspapers that fact-check.. and that are available online so everyone can verify content based on them. Official bios can be used sparingly. Blogs should be avoided, like press releases should be... (although official press releases can be very useful for the simple facts they are announcing - like a release announcing that Marin was appointed to X position on Y date... but only if those facts have clear biographical signicance, like an appointment to a major job. Not for some accomplishment that he is trying to get people to pay attention to - those are exactly the kind that are to be avoided, and where we need independent sourcing to show that it matters). Eljaydubya‎ and Abursey, since you work for the guy and you have an interest in this article, I'd like to ask you to find really good, independent, reliable sources about Marin's education, background, and current work, and post links to them here. Would you be willing to do that? Thanks. Thissilladia and CheckersBoard you are also very welcome to post links to reliable, independent sources that are not already in the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to sources not in the article as it currently appears? (ie: stub), or do you mean before it was stubbed. Do you need me to resubmit the articles I had used in the controversies section? Thissilladia (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no, those are still available in the history. the part that was poorly sourced, was the rest of the article, which I think you never looked at. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this makes sense. A lot of the original content, to my understanding, was posted a few years ago, and should be cleaner. I would like to propose multiple sources - basically since some of the information in the news media may have actually originated from our office. We'll work on this. One question: Can a YouTube video be considered an official source (if it's a video of someone saying the item in question)? Thanks for the insight. Abursey (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
everything should be WP:secondary sources. If the video is of, say a news broadcast, direct from whoever produced it, it may be OK (not reposted on youtube where it may have been edited). I generally find videos to be bad sources. We use sources 2 ways -- the editor who uses them needs to have read them, and read the other relevant literature, so that the content being generated is really NPOV and presents the mainstream view, giving appropriate WP:WEIGHT, and secondly, they allow other editors and readers to verify the content. For the latter purpose, using a video means somebody checking has to watch the damn thing and listen to find where the content is discussed. in my view, a big waste of time. text is best in my view. but yes, some videos are OK. this is all discussed in WP:RS Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube links can be timestamped by adding a "&t=4m20s" (or whatever time) to the URL. No need to watch the whole thing. And plenty of news outlets have their own official YouTube channels. Sticking to those should be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can use them if you like... I will continue to avoid them. :) Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sometimes rather text. Definitely quicker to read, and the secondary context is nice. But now and then, someone will say something that looks one way on paper, but another with the right tone, expression and reaction. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
if the source is a thinly veiled press release, that will show and i will not use it. if it is a newspaper piece where a reporter interviewed folks and wrote an article, that is fine. not sure what you meant by "originated from" our office. anything really originated by your office is not independent and I won't use it. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By 'originated from' I just meant that we may have made a public announcement which was then covered by the media in a news story - sorry for that not being clear. I'll read through the source information, thank you. Abursey (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some sources

[edit]

gathering some sources that look use-able... Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources added to biography, biography as ombudsman, investigations that seem notable Abursey (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'll mark any contribs to this section going forward. Thanks, still learning. Abursey (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you did nothing wrong, i just wanted the notation of who provided the source for my benefit. btw, with regard to everything here, i am looking for sources that provide facts, not rhetoric. On the investigations, what i am looking for are sources that report tangible outcomes. e.g. the genetic testing source is pretty good (Ombudsman report results in tests being offered). The first G20 source is not useful (bunch of talk) and i won't use it; the second one is useful and I probably will. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of the book on ombudsmen:

Other

some useful biography:

Investigations that ~seem~ notable:


Andre Marin's link submissions (via Abursey):

Ontario Ombudsman investigations (via Abursey):

Biography as Ombudsman (via Abursey):

Re-appointment controversy (via Abursey):

additional other side of the story sources:

Marin's expenses continue to be an issue, he spends more than provincial ministers who have constituencies to service.
Don't think this was previously cited. Included this because it is by a well-respected political writer. It also addresses the concerns of accountability of this specific (Andre Marin) ombudsman, which underpins all the discourse of his "detractors" and the stories of "controversies." Thissilladia (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tenure at SIU: 21 months between 1996 and 1998; 300+ investigations; 5 charges laid; 0 convictions; sued twice by police officers for malicious prosecution (one dismissal, one confidential settlement) Lurker999 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progressive Conservative MPP Randy Hillier (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington) criticized Marin's personal use of Twitter (discussing his daughter's dating habits), causing another delay of his report on Hydro One.

https://twitter.com/randyhillier/status/575648730247987201 (via Thissilladia) Thissilladia (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Notes on sources
  • General/investigative training course reference contains a single line on the course. If that is all there is on "Sharpening Your Teeth," then that topic is not of encyclopedic interest. There needs to be substantial discussion in a reliable source, or I am not bringing it in. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Abursey (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marin created the group specifically for conducting the large-scale systemic investigations that not been done by the office previously. Sometimes the term 'SORT' is referenced in media coverage, so I added it as more of an explainer.Abursey (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate it you would bring reliable sources discussing negatives. NPOV does not mean, not negative, and nobody is perfect. Some of us have glaring flaws, even. including me. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Work in progress - I just added more. Abursey (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits today

[edit]

In this dif, Mdann52 took a big chunk of text out of the article, with edit note "no need to go into this much detail". Had done similar at David Paciocco. Here even more than there, the article needs careful review as it has been subject both to PROMO editing and denigrative editing, EACH of which violate BLP. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this dif is more appropriate thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance we could add gym selfies, doggy pics and chili recipes? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

article needs BLP protect....

[edit]

randomly saw this... I think this article needs full protection. His bio is a complete slam and textbook WP:UNDUE and now it's on Twitter? This would have been a great plotline for Parks & Recreation, for one of the city politicians to have a Wikipedia profile that was being constantly vandalized... Wikimandia (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. That would be disruptive. and your description isnot accurate. the vandalism is quite new and brief. prior to that the articles were being massaged by his PR staff. Wrong one way before, then briefly wrong the other way. it is now actually stubified. discussion of OTRS editor's approach is here at a related article. Discussion about rebuilding (starting with gathering good sources) is above. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it does need to be protected and edited by neutral people. He's an ombudsman - his entire job is picking at public officials and cleaning house, so of course he's going to make enemies. It's been stubified so now 40 percent of his biography is about how much he sucks and "scandals" regarding his use of Twitter? And I thought the people of Syria had it bad living under ISIS.... may we all be protected from the cruel regime of André Marin and his bloody trail of Tweets, eh! Wikimandia (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you want to take over. fine, i will step away. please make sure you take care of the other two articles as well. I am unwatching all of them. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try as soon as I can... André Marin is outside my house and he's armed with tweets!!!!!! aahhhhh send help!!!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhh now he's TWEETING from INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!!! ahhhh help me Sir Dave Coulier!!!!!! Wikimandia (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you're the boss now, anything I should do? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikimandia, Jytdog diffused a bad situation and started to repair these pages. I'm really uncertain as to how your language above helps move these pages ahead. How does taking us back to a place where concerns of editors are being made fun of helpful? You have made it clear that you are already dismissing submissions by some of us, even with tons of sources from the Star, Globe & Mail, CTV, London Free Press, etc. It seems like you are going to bring us back to going through the whole thing again. Thissilladia (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI for Wikimandia. Page is being rebuilt and I would like them off permanently. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

[edit]

FYI, I just restored a blank of the entire page. I have no idea what's going on with this article but it looks like quite the mess and the version I restored seems unbalanced. Please, if you have a problem with the content of the page, bring it up on the talk page and/or fix it with a reasonable explanation for what you're doing in the edit summary. Removing whole chunks of content or all of the content without discussion is not helpful. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and COPYVIO issues

[edit]

When "paraphrasing" any article, using the exact same wording from the article is a violation of Wikipedia WP:COPYVIO. Using government data sources to reach conclusions not separately reached by secondary reliable sources is a violation of WP:OR. Adding material which gives an implication of actual legal wrongdoing, absent a strong reliable source making such claims, is contrary to WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLPCRIME. I do not care who Marin is, or why anyone is so anxious to make accusations, but WP requires we be careful on biographies of living persons, and so I have removed what I consider to be material which violates these policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you :) what a mess! Much better :) CheckersBoard (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete page do to failure to meet notability criteria

[edit]

Proposal to delete page do to failure to meet notability criteria

-In addition the speedy deletion tag was removed against wiki rules. -at best some information from the article can be merged into other related articles with less triviality and make other articles more consisitent. -article relies too heavily on primary and secondary sourcing. Currently stands as more of a hagiography and job application than a topic worthy of encyclopaedic entry and has been so from the beginning without any substantial change -topic might be better as a blog elsewhere -career postings can be listed under the appropriate articles

Essentially overall information presented isn't substantial enough to warrant a single article on this particular. CheckersBoard (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was my removal of the speedy deletion against Wikipedia rules? -- GB fan 16:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined your speedy deletion request again. If you feel it should be deleted you will need to nominate it using the WP:AFD process. -- GB fan 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

I have put in place a compromise lead. Can we discuss it here rather than continually changing it? -- GB fan 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate your efforts to find a compromise GB fan, but I don't think that particular editor is editing this page in good faith or has shown much understanding of WP policy. CheckersBoard is restoring content that is clearly inappropriate and I would have reverted myself. Per WP:LEAD the intro should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The reason Marin is notable is because of his work as ombudsman. The lead is now written to focus equally on his various positions, which isn't appropriate for the lead, and reads like a resume or a promotional piece. His other work can be mentioned in the body of the article, but that work was barely covered by the press. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This policy makes it pretty clear : "The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." He's only notable because of his work as Ontario Ombudsman. That should be the only thing mentioned in the intro. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • GB you are correct. The idea that the Ombudsman position is unique to the living person's article is not credible. The other positions held are notable due to the higher level of government involved. More sources can be added later as the article continues to form. Just because the one editor doesn't want to spend time finding other sources doesn't mean they don't exist and as this article has developed that has become apparent; in fact at one point it was argud for deletion but notability requirements were found and verified. This was not exclusively due to content regarding one role by the individual involved. Despite evidence contrary to their position this sudden editor is continually insisting that the article is about their favorite position and they refuse to co-operate. They also lobbed a "I think they are COI" TRICK. Pretty transparent.? There were two COI in the past, it is in the edit history. Time to focus on the entire article, not the individual interests of advocate editors. The compromise you have proposed GB is not only reasonable, balanced and fair, it fits with the encyclopedic structure of wiki. I haven't seen anything to convince me this other editor has the best intentions involved for the wiki article. In addition many references to activities during this man's tenure fit more in-line with the ombudsman ontario article as he was the office head and checking the reports states that it is the property of the office but fee for public distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckersBoard (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you don't fully understand how wikipedia works. Also please stop making unfounded accusations about me. First of all, stop removing reliably sourced content from the page because of your relationship with Marin. Next, notability has to do with coverage in reliable sources. The lead summarizes the article, not some future state that you keep claiming will eventually exist. Please read WP:OPENPARA, which explains how opening paragraphs are made. I don't know what you mean by "sudden editor." Anyone is free to edit any page on Wikipedia. Please see WP:OWN. I referred to a COI because there was an investigation involving you, and you are tagged at the top of this very talk page as potentially having a conflict of interest. It seems clear you have some conflict because you continually remove reliably sourced content from the page that is positive to Marin, for no reason at all. Finally, no, we shouldn't put info about Marin in the Ontario Ombudsman article. That wouldn't make much sense, since that article is about the position, and this article is about Marin. I'd suggest if you want to make further edits to the page to first post a comment to the talk page to discuss since your edits have not been beneficial to the page. I'd be happy to make edits for you if you suggest them here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Press Council

[edit]

Section about press council may fit in the Ontario Press council article which, as it turns out, it exists. Not too sure, it may also be a better fit on the Ontario Ombudsman page. It belongs in one of three articles, has been properly sourced, and has relevance and doesn't violate wiki requirements. All further discussion needs to be about editing content and format, please stay on track regardless of the odd conflicts that have arisen, this can still be done. Thanks to all contributors and help regardless. CheckersBoard (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in this article, under the section André Marin#Office complaints. clpo13(talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page?

[edit]

Justifiably, or otherwise, the Marin article is wholly disparaging in tone and content. My understanding is that Mr. Marin has expressed a desire to have the article deleted from Wikipedia. As a courtesy, I will request that the article be deleted and will blank the page on his behalf. Does anyone object? Lurker9999 (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not bllank the article. That will be reverted and you run the risk of being blocked for disruptive editing. If you feel the article should be deleted you will need to start at discussion using the instructions found at WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking would be reverted per GB fan. But an AfD is pointless, since Andre Marin clearly meets the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GB, Patar; I thought that there my might possibly be grounds for deletion as it is "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone". However, the article is well sourced. Read:G10 Lurker9999 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the weird header. This isn't twitter and all we do on this page is discuss changes to the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to read G10 again, I know exactly what it says. I have fixed the header again. We use descriptive headers that describe what the discussion in the section is about. This section is a discussion about deleting this page. ~ GB fan 18:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You object to blanking and/or deleting, understood. I placed a link to this discussion on Mr. Marin's talk page, so that he might present his own case in this venue. Since you feel the need to edit my postings, perhaps you could repair the link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OrdinaryPlanetMan#Mandatory_paid_editing_disclosure). Lurker9999 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to change your signed posting on someone's talk page. If you feel it needs to be changed, then fix it yourself. ~ GB fan 18:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:André_Marin&oldid=1203889333"