User talk:Typing.monkey/archive2

Careful
This edit was totally unacceptable and I regard it to have been a serious violation of our policies on biographies of living people and rightly reverted. I'm far from convinced that the admission in one interview is enough for inclusion of the material when it has been so categoricially denied elsewhere and certainly does not qualify to be included in the heading. Adding the word "prostitution" to the heading (which then shows up in the contents at the top of the page) consitutes excessive undue weight to that element of the subject's life (which is far from conclusively established). Failure to abide by our policies on biographies of living people will result in your being blocked from editing. The interview may need to be included in the article in some manner, but the form should be agreed on the talkpage before edits are made. WjBscribe 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded in further detail on your talk page. Your threat is out of line and abusive.  It is not vandalism to link to a recorded interview that was broadcast nationally, it is a verifiable source, is not libelous and is not in violation of the biography guidelines.  Some people are controversial but this does not mean they should be immune from past statements.  Wikipedia is not a PR mechanism.Typing monkey 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be imitidate by WJBscribe. He is using his authority in a totally inappropriate manner. It is shocking to see this happen. Is there a mechanism at Wikipedia to oversee misconduct by administrators? I hope there is, because it should be activated immediately. 24.18.130.89 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, I appreciate it. The biography guidelines don't suggest that only flattering or pre-approved material be published about a subject.  Wikipedia only asks that sources be factual and verifiable.Typing monkey 01:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, I have received a very harsh warning from a different administrator for making "personal attacks" on the Matt Sanchez discussion page. It would seem that Wikipedia's administrators are on something of a jihad against anyone who dooesn't agree with the article on the guy being turned into a promotional vehicle for him. Curious, isn't it? 24.18.130.89 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very curious. Apparently, it is just the *opinion* of countless editors that these interviews took place and were recorded.  We must all be operating under some kind of mass delusion.  Maybe we have always *have* been at war with East Asia.Typing monkey 06:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what's going on. Someone(s) high up at Wikipedia really want to protect and promote Sanchez. The longer it goes on, the weirder it gets. There's no rule they won't break on his behalf, but for anyone who criticizes the editors and/or administrators, or who differs with Sanchez, they find a reason to toss them out of here. Have you noticed how Sanchez has been given carte blanche to launch personal attacks at anyone and everyone who dares cross him? 24.18.130.89 07:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed! I think there is a hypervigilance about biographies of living persons because of some embarrassing publicity in the past and also the very real fear of libel lawsuits.  However, I think the velvet gloves approach has made this article completely unbalanced.  His tone on the talk pages has taken on dictatorial airs, simply because he has been allowed to direct so much of the content.  If it continues in this direction it should probably go to a request for comment.  I'm thinking about it but should probably break for a bit.Typing monkey 07:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia strikes me as Kafkaesque. From what I've been able to gather, there are so many rules that the rules don't matter. Administrators and senior editors ignore them at will, except when they choose to declare their allegiance to one or another rule, or at least part of a rule, because it suits their immediate purposes. The Sanchez article is twisted beyond all recognition. It's really pretty amazing. I gather that you have a lot of experience here. Is this what Wikipedia is always about, or is it just a series of fiefdoms, some true and accurate and others being cesspools of favoritism and corruption like the Sanchez article? Truthjusticeamericanway 03:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. It's controversial and Wikipedia tends to be conservative - not in the political sense, but in an academic sense (or a "cover your butt and don't get us sued" sense).  It's all "process", and verifiability and consensus.  And it sometimes takes a while, as you can tell.  Wikipedia has been facing more and more criticism over their content regarding living persons and the potential for lawsuits, which is why they're so touchy about bios.  I have faith that it will be an accurate article at some point in the future, but it takes a *lot* of discussion.  Lots and lots and lots of it.  And a little more.  And the more people that weigh in with calm, rational arguments, the better.  The most important thing is to stay focused.  It can be very frustrating.  Pwok was doing such an excellent job until he finally lost his temper.  It would be easier if Sanchez were not so heavily involved, but he has a right to make suggestions, however asinine, on the talk page.  I think Sanchez has been doing a very good job at smokescreening - creating non-issues for argument and making people angry and nitpicking and diluting the debate about what really matters: Is the information notable?  Why is there an article about him in the first place?  It is not a fan page, he does not have ownership over the article, and he cannot dictate every bit of information that goes in it.Typing monkey 04:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting about "consensus." How does a WJBscribe arrogate to himself the sole authority to determine the Sanchez article's content? That's extraordinary. It would seem to violate all of this folderol that Wikipedia puts out there about being a "user edited encyclopedia." Is that a common thing at Wikipedia? When under stress, do their inner dictators escape from the booby hatch and scamper on down the highway, waving a bloody axe? Truthjusticeamericanway 10:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about Pwok. I went and looked at as much "history" as I could bear, and that one looked like a case of "first you drive them crazy, then you call them crazy." I notice that Pwok asked for help from the moderators, and was completed ignored and then finally driven crazy. I have to hand it to Wikipedia. They're good when it comes to driving people away! Maybe they should quit writing anything controversial, if they can't figure out how to handle controversial topics. Truthjusticeamericanway 10:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez article
Please read up on Disruptive editing. Please note: I'm not accusing you of this but I believe your voluminous comments on the talk pages fly in the face of the policies and do violate the spirit of cooperation needed to produce good articles.
 * I suggest that you

1. "chill" and when you do repost keep it civil and productive. If another editor(s) are adding unverified statements or information supported only by blogosphere rumors it will be deleted. It might not happen immediately but there are a lot of folks watching the page so it should happen rather soon. 2. Focus instead on adding the material you think is missing and should be included. Providing the weblink directly to the source and it's easy enough for someone else to start to sort it out. 3. Work on some other articles. Biographies of living people are notoriously back and forth processes that take time. You may have noticed that I have yet to make a big edit since I haven't had the time to read through everything that's already happened and I've been working on other articles. Having an additional set of comments each day makes it harder when it's rehashing the same points. Benjiboi 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you are warning those who dispute attempts by Sanchez and his promoters in Wikipiedia's ranks of administrators and senior editors to allow him to edit his own article by proxy, and to block truthful, verified information from that article. You might succeed, but if so I can tell you it'll be a Pyrrhic victory, because Wikipedia will be shown to be an organization that cares little for the truth. I hope someone at Wikipedia will take a good, long look at what is happening at this article. They should drop their "circle-the-wagons" mentality and apply their rules, staring with a dedication to telling the real story, and to common sense in the editing of this article. Truthjusticeamericanway 18:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My response to the "disruptive" non-accusation.Typing monkey 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with what you're stating in the talk pages. The style is disruptive-ish when you look at the talk pages history and see users such as yourself post 5-7 times in a row across topics. It makes it harder for any editors to follow the discussion and communicate. i first let a similiar warning on Matt Sanchez & Blue Marine's pages and felt it only fair to do the same for opposing viewpoint editors that may have been following his lead. If everyone can relax a bit the talk pages might become more useful to all concerned. Benjiboi 19:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm missing what it was that your refering to - trying to verify his escort website? Because the talk pages were -so- heated I tried (and am still trying) to simply find the real article beneath all the heated deflections going at least two ways. Once I had read up on the surface sources available I tried (and seemingly) succeeded in getting the whole heated discussions lowered so Matt and those wanting his escort past accurately woudl refrain from posting and reposting 5-8 times in a row across subjects causing more confusion in the process. Now I'm trying to dig up a workable timeline so I can potentially see what all is missing and start accurate editing. Inserting poorly sourced and non-neutral language isn't going to help. Please let me know if I'm screwing something up as I certainly might be but have yet to make any real content edits on the article. Benjiboi 06:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My response.

Sanchez
(copying your question) ''1. Congratulations on your nomination ^. Maybe you can help me understand something that seems to be flying over me. Really, I know it's a controversial page, but the timidity about the "controversial" aspects of the controversial article in question go way beyond what the cautions in WP:BLP were intended for, imho. I still do not understand why the Colmes interview, for instance, is not allowed under WP:BIO since it is not "invasive" and the subject is "notable". WP:BLP, I think, doesn't want us putting up birth certificates and driver's licenses, not interviews on nationally broadcast news programs. I genuinely do not understand why that is an unreasonable interpretation and no one has offered an explanation. Have you encountered any similar situations? If so, how did the reasoning go?''

''2. The page in question seems to get people on edge. I noticed you [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WJBscribe#Warrantless_threats_are_an_abuse_of_your_adminship. accused] Truthjusticeamericanway of being a sock-puppet - this is not so. I will swear to it on a stack of frivolous lawsuits. I know him (well, we met through mutual pixels) and he is not Pwok. I think Pwok threw in the wiki-towel, and I can't really blame him. I understand his frustration. By the way, I'm not Pwok either. I'm also not Truthjusticeamericanway, or a series of numbers, or Benjiboi, or Alice, or the cheshire cat. I hope, if you make admin, you don't decide to just block people on whims.Typing monkey 01:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)''
 * Hiya, thanks for your message. In regards the Colmes interview, I actually think it's worth including...  I think you're referring to WJBscribe's comments.  I have enormous respect for WJBscribe, but we don't always agree on everything.  :)  The best way to proceed on Sanchez's article, is to build a consensus of multiple editors.  If multiple editors, discussing things in a civil and good faith way, reach a consensus of opinion, I'm confident that WJBscribe will go along with consensus.  The trick is figuring out just where that consensus is.  Things are also made more complicated when people pop up with uncivil comments, which is why it's essential that those who truly want to find a path through this labyrinth, do their best to stay as polite and respectful as possible.  I've seen you as one of the more reasonable voices in the debate, and I encourage you to continue that trend, and encourage others to do the same.  :)


 * I actually thought we'd come up with a compromise on the escorting allegations back in April, when I added this paragraph to the page. It's been brought into question though, so we need to re-check consensus on its inclusion.  In other words, please continue to participate at the talkpage, and wherever you see someone saying something that you agree with, please try to speak up to indicate that you're in agreement.  It may also be worth holding a poll, to let each editor weigh in individually, which will help us test where exactly the consensus is.


 * As regards Truthjustice, I agree with you that he's probably not Pwok directly at the keyboard, but it's still clearly a meatpuppet account, meaning an account that is acting on behalf of a banned editor, and is not participating at any other subject except the one that was in dispute. If Pwok's roommate were interested in participating in other areas of Wikipedia, and if he were able to participate on talkpages in a civil and respectful way, I'd be okay on him being unblocked.  But judging by the, erm, aggressive nature of his talkpage posts, I'm not inclined to believe that that's the case. If you'd like to contact me off-wiki, I'd be happy to discuss things further...  I can be reached at elonka@aol.com, or if you're on IMs, feel free to give me a ping.  :) And if you have any other questions, let me know!  :) --Elonka 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bluemarine RFC
Absolutely - I've moved it to approved. Aatombomb 06:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your request, RfC are generally somehting I support but you didn't really tell me why, what purpose. I know Bluemarine apparantly is Matt Sánchez and he is let's say overly enthusiastic about "his" article, but what's the purpose of the RfC?CholgatalK! 04:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Typingmonkey, I'd be glad to read through the diffs & respond to this RfC as an outside view, but it hasn't been certified! You need to get two signatures from users who attempted to resolve disputes with Bluemarine to sign in the certification section of the RfC within 48 hours of the RfC being initiated.  But not there's not even one certification. Aatombom was incorrect in moving it to the "approved" portion of the user-conduct RfC list becuase of that; I've moved it back.  You can be one signature to certify, but you will need to find one other editor also involved in disputes with Bluemarine or it will be deleted by an admin when they notice it. -- & then you would have to start it again.  --Yksin 18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall having had any interactions with Bluemarine, but I support your RfC. Corvus cornix 18:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize, but it's been a while since I interacted with Bluemarine/Matt, and there seems no shortage of editors commenting in the RFC about his more recent behavior. So I'm going to focus on other things that I think are a better use of my limited time regarding Wikipedia.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC format
I just changed the headers of the NPOV/COI violations evidence you just provided. You had them under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute." What should be included under this last header is diffs showing how users who have certified the dispute (including you if you've signed as a certifier) have attempted to talk with Bluemarine to get him to amend his ways, such as warnings or discussion on his user talk page, or on the article talk page. See other RfCs (the one's I did were on HanzoHattori & Custerwest) for examples of how people have done this. RfCs can be tough to put together, but it'll be worth it if it helps solve the conflict! BTW, I answered your thanks on my own talk page. --Yksin 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence you just provided was of Bluemarine purportedly trying to warn about something you purportedly did wrong -- but the evidence you actually need for that section is of you or other editors cautioning him about his bad behavior, but which he ignored. --Yksin 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the RfC talk page, a user just mentioned that Bluemarine sometimes uses anon IPs for his less savory comments. I strongly suggest that you & other users who are more familiar with Bluemarine's activities do all you can to document this kind of thing.  I did something like that with Requests for comment/Custerwest (though his use of anon IPs was a little more "innocent" if any such thing could be said of Custerwest), & it's done wonders to help prevent continuation of that kind of abuse. As I said at the RfC talk page, the more that editors who know the case can do to document it with evidence, the more it helps outside editors like User:Into the Fray & me so that we can get up to snuff on the case & a larger consensus for what to do can be created.  It'll also come in handy if it's necessary to take this case further up the line to aritration or something. --Yksin 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See reply to your latest message on my talk page. Keep the faith: you're doing good. --Yksin 05:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Short answer: Sure! Longer answer: on my talk page. --Yksin 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I voted. Thank you for telling me. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Since you voted to delete, I've a question, though - have you run up against many articles in which the sources were controversial?  For instance, I don't think democracynow.com should be listed as a source any more than worldnetdaily.com, however, should editors have the burden to fight that discussion battle on each article on which those sources are listed?  Typing Monkey - (type to me) 03:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

An explanation
Sometimes when I intervene in a partisan dispute an action can draw suspicions of partisanship, so to the extent that it's possible I'd like to address that proactively. I've answered probably hundreds of article content requests for comment and this is the first that redirected responses to a conduct RFC. As such, my deletion of the content RFC was purely procedural.

Sometimes when a dispute gets polarized it helps for a third party to step forward and talk neutrally. I've just made that offer to Bluemarine and I'll extend the same to you. You can contact me through the following link: Special:Emailuser/Durova. As I've expressed to Bluemarine, I'll probably recuse myself from actual use of the sysop tools in this dispute but might request review and intervention by uninvolved administrators if that becomes necessary. Durova Charge! 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've e-mailed a response.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to you earlier
You would have piqued my interest if I had had time for Wikipedia. I am just busy outside of Wikipedia, but I will reply shortly to your message(s). Please keep my talk page on your watchlist. &mdash; Sebastian 04:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I replied to both your messages on my talk page, please keep the conversation there. &mdash; Sebastian 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)