Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop

proposals by user xyz
Just as a comment, I don't care for the layout of the proposals. Makes for lots of subheadings. and implies that everyone needs to propose a whole decision, when that is not the case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this format doesn't make it much easier to navigate the proposals. --Core desat 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just went with what was there when I started. Is this a new way of doing it? Lawrence Cohen  21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its being tried out at the request of the Arbitrators. There's some relevant discussion at Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard. WjBscribe 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, i guess we'll give it a shot....though i think the main limitation to the workshop pages is the arguementation that goes on that is often only tangentially related to the proposal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for proposal
I'm not sure how to best word it, but I'd like to see some sort of remedy that deals with the SPA situation. For example, we're getting single-purpose accounts who "participate" at the talkpage, and they're civil and all, but they're obviously agenda-driven, and it's impossible to negotiate with them towards a compromise, because, well, they don't compromise. I'm not sure how to word an effective remedy though. Just brainstorming: "Obvious SPA accounts do not need to be accommodated in talkpage discussions"? Or "Obvious SPA accounts who appear to be obstructing consensus decisions can be banned from the topic area"? How has this problem been dealt with in the past, where an account "parks" on Wikipedia for one purpose and one purpose only? They never edit war, they're never uncivil, but they never agree with anyone else either? --Elonka 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of those SPAs aren't civil. Durova  Charge! 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "In article discussions, opinions of obvious SPAs may be devalued when establishing consensus." Is that the sort of wording you're after, Elonka? I don't know how it would fly. On the surface, having dealt with mind-numbing SPAs, I want to like it, but... Lawrence Cohen  21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, obvious SPAs can still be welcome contributors, if they're reasonable individuals who are willing to work towards consensus. What I'm trying to find, is some sort of out that says that we can remove the really mule-headed ones from the equation.  I'm all for trying hard to find a compromise, where all parties are willing to work towards compromise, even if some of the folks have strongly-held opinions.  But sometimes someone comes into a discussion, and their attitude is, "The only possible compromise is to do it my way."  And I'd like to see if we can come up with a creative solution that helps us to identify those "un-budgable" SPAs, so that we don't have to waste weeks of time trying to convince the unconvinceable.


 * For example, we've had some SPAs at the talkpage who are convinced that Sanchez was a prostitute. It doesn't matter how much we tell them about BLP, or WP:V, or WP:NOR, they're just convinced that the Wikipedia article has to include that information, and we can't seem to find a stable consensus version of the article, because the SPAs won't budge.  In some ways, it's like we do need an authoritative "decision" on the article's content.  If we had enough good-faith editors in the mix, the consensus would be obvious, and the SPA opinions would be minimized. The problem comes in where the SPAs are present in sufficient numbers, that it maintains a stalemate.  Part of the problem also is that though we do have some good faith editors who are willing to participate in the discussion, they're not willing to make a full-time career of this one article.  Whereas the SPAs aren't interested in anything else on Wikipedia, and so they can just park on the article until they exhaust the good faith editors, and then the SPAs start up the problems again.


 * (just brainstorming here) One possibility is that we set up a period of time that the article is under review, and we encourage all interested editors to come in and participate during that review period.  So we come up with a stable version from that period, and then we Protect the article until the next review period.  That keeps the POV-pushing SPAs at bay without exhausting the good-faith editors.  Then again, that method is completely against the Wikipedia model of "open encyclopedia."  So maybe there's some happy medium somewhere in the middle?  I'm not sure.  My gut says to come up with some mechanism where controversial changes to the article cannot be made unless there are enough good faith editors in the mix that say, "Okay," and then that limits the SPAs to the talkpage.


 * Another option: How about a proposal that says that SPA accounts are prevented from editing the article directly, though they're still allowed to participate at the talkpage? That way they can discuss what they want, but only experienced editors are allowed to make actual changes? --Elonka 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the escort detail vis a vis the BLP policy, I do not believe there is uniform opinion even among the editors. This entire SPA account discussion is a proxy for your and Horologium's belief that this is out of bounds due to BLP. You have a point, but so do those editors who believe the information should be included (provided Sanchez's later denials are also included.) So I do not agree with your attempt to create an 'SPA-class' editor here on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could provide some standard for testing who's opinions will be discounted and which will not? Moreover, I think part of the issue has been the fact that you yourself have already done this in the past, discounting the opinions of editors who were operating in good faith and making a reasonable attempt to explain their point of view. For example, you once claimed that the Military Times, a Gannett newspaper with a total circ of ~300,000 wasn't a reliable source because an SPA referenced it. I've been accused of being an SPA by Horologium before and yet again as part of this RFAr, I think this is just a cop-out and Wiki-approved form of name-calling. Aatombomb (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have misunderstood the proposal. Its intent is to prevent otherwise civil SPAs from disrupting consensus building, not advance a content dispute on this particular article (there would be far more efficacious ways to do that...). The SPAs contributions would not be seen to be evidence of the opposite of their argument, as you fear, but rather lack of evidence for their argument.  True, there are practical issues here which make implementing something problematic, which Elonka pointed out, (beans, anyone?), but this is anything but a copout.  If anything, this type of issue should be revisited on many levels around the project. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have misunderstood. The original suggestion seems to be specific to the article in question. It has since expanded into a more general idea for a broader proposal. You are still discounting evidence merely because it's attached to an SPA. Also, what is an SPA? Where is the line drawn? Is it dichotomous? A continuum? When does an account emerge from SPA-dom into the realm of the glorious and reknowned? That being said, her later idea for an editorial rating system is probably a good one. Aatombomb (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, check out Waldorf education Rfar for one that delt with spa's that were mostly civil enough (there were exceptions), and where it seems to have mostly worked. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's interesting, though it appears that the solution there was to single out a particular SPA and limit his behavior that way. What I'm looking for is a more general remedy that will deal with all such SPAs that pop in, without requiring an ArbCom case on each one.  It's one of the problems with dealing with disruptive behavior on Wikipedia, is that there's a lot of bureaucracy involved in dealing with problematic users.  A single SPA can come in and disrupt with a minimum of effort, and then it takes the "experienced" editors many hours of redtape in order to get the disruptive editor dealt with.


 * So, what I'm trying to help brainstorm here, is a kind of remedy that minimizes the damage caused by the disruptive editors, but also minimizes the time required by the good editors. I've seen many cases where disruptive editors are allowed to continue to disrupt for far too long, simply because the other good editors don't want to spend the hours needed to collate all the diffs and "make a case."  Individually identifying the SPAs and restricting their editing privileges is definitely one solution, but it's time-consuming.  Protecting the page is another solution, but limits the activities of the good-faith editors. I'm trying to find a solution that's somewhere in between those two extremes.


 * As an aside, I've been kicking around an idea about an editor rating system, where it's easy at a glance to tell the difference between new editors; longterm "good standing" editors; editors who are under specific sanctions; and editors who fall into the grey area in between. This proposal isn't ready for formal announcement yet, but if anyone wants to help with the wording, let me know.  :) --Elonka 17:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (still brainstorming) I still think we need some sort of remedy or statement of fact like "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". We can acknowledge that Sanchez's behavior has been a problem, but we should also acknowledge that Sanchez has been heavily provoked.  He is not the only problem at the Matt Sanchez article.  And we should avoid a "solution" where we block Sanchez, but still allow his provokers to continue to edit.  That would be a very sad solution for us to adopt. --Elonka 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think of a proposal that will result in progressively longer bans on him, and language in it supporting that making anti-gay comments is unacceptable on Wikipedia? That is my primary concern at this point: that he either stops doing that, or is made to stop doing that by force, since it's simply unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen  19:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that that's a partial solution, but that this case should be concerned not just with controlling Sanchez, but with also controlling those who have been provoking him and trying to use his biography as a soapbox. Yes, Sanchez's behavior has been a problem, but he's also been a victim.  I'd rather that we didn't compound the injustices here, by blocking Sanchez and yet letting his attackers continue to run free. We've got plenty of proposals at this case about Sanchez's behavior.  We also need some proposals to deal with the other disruptive editors at his biography. --Elonka 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We need more solid evidence in diffs, but I would happily support that, yes. At the least NPA probation for any others as well that someone can demonstrate with evidence was as bad as Matt was. Lawrence Cohen  20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing too many details of this case, I think the principle of this proposal is fantastic. This type of SPA gaming behavior is frustrating to say the least, and really presents a long term threat to the project's integrity. That said, I am not sure what can be explicitly done: it is easy for a good faith editor to invoke the duck test when confronted with such a SPA, but it is also just as easy for another good faith editor (to say nothing about bad faith editors) to say wait, it's just a new user so no duck (especially if they sympathize with the argument so appear to see more credibility and good faith than might be due). Someone will have to make a call on these SPAs and expose themselves to flak and drama. And it certainly won't put to rest any cabal talk. But these types of subtle gaming issues are the major long-term threat to the project, without any doubt. The effort to come up with a solution here is well worth it, but will also be quite daunting, I predict. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the principle in general. It ought to be discussed at the guideline/policy level.  Durova  Charge! 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so we don't all lose track of the reliable source where Sanchez, whatever he claims today, admitted twice to being a male prostitute. It is sourced and cited here an audio clip where you can listen with your own ears without needing to believe any subsequent spin. Wjhonson (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs are rarely acceptable as reliable sources. My interest here is in site policies and standards, not in content issues.  Durova  Charge! 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The blog is not the source. The blog only hosts the audio-source as the Radio program where this appeared lives only in the atmosphere.  The underlying source is a transcription of the Radio program.  This was a nationally-syndicated program, there should be no problem at all in citing it.  There is no policy which prevents citing Radio programs.  Anyone who wishes to verify it from the original source can get a transcription in hard-copy, just like any other source. Wjhonson (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request by Bluemarine
FYI, Matt has asked to be unblocked again, to participate in this ArbCom. Second attempt, please review. Lawrence Cohen 22:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at his talkpage, I would support an unblock. I think too often that we are assuming that because we've said something to Sanchez, that he must have (a) read it; and (b) understood it.  But in actuality, I think that a lot of what is going on, on-wiki, is confusing him.  He can't tell editors apart, he can't tell the difference between ArbCom and ANI, and on top of all that, he's getting a steady barrage of off-wiki harassment.  In that kind of environment, it doesn't surprise me that he'd be confused, and occasionally lashing out at everyone indiscriminately.  So I think we should listen to what he actually promises, instead of us making assumptions about what we think he does or doesn't understand. At the moment, he's given his word that he won't edit anything except the ArbCom case. That's one of the most promising signs we've gotten from him in a long time. I think we should accept him at his word, and give him a chance to defend himself. --Elonka 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned on his talk page as well, I think he should be given one more chance to contribute here, but only if he agrees to completely stop the homophobic nonsense in his posting. He can feel whatever he wants, but sharing that bile on here is not right. Lawrence Cohen  23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been unblocked per User talk:Bluemarine, again with the understanding not to edit anywhere else but his talk page and Arbcom pages. Will he play us again? -- ALLSTAR  echo 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Block unblock block
Please review Bluemarine's contributions, he again edited pages outside of this case after being unblocked. Lawrence Cohen 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked above, "Will he play us again?". He did. And still hasn't been blocked for this second violation of the restrictions placed on his 2 previous unblocks. -- ALLSTAR  echo 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He seems to have made some rather civil comments to the article about him. I will warn him but I will not enforce a new block; also note that the last block before the case was filed was for a week and would have expired 02:44 Jan 13, so after that time he will be free from any unusual restrictions. Thatcher 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Disclosure
What backchannel communications have taken place between Elonka Dunin and Matt Sanchez? Has Dunin offered her support to Sanchez in these ArbComm proceeduings? What COI rules apply in such cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2008
 * While we're requesting disclosures, please disclose your registered account. Durova  Charge! 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia rule requires me to have a registered account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2008
 * Then please list the IP addresses you have used, as well as any registered accounts. Durova  Charge! 05:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance to this case, as Elonka is not a party to it. --Core desat 05:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of Sanchez, until I started working on the article in mid-2007. I've been in occasional IM and email communication with him since then, as I have with many other living people whose bios I have worked on. I do this for the purposes of fact-checking, getting image permission, learning about potential other sources, and, if/when the article subject expresses an interest in editing Wikipedia for themselves, I try to counsel them on Wikipedia policies and procedures, especially  regarding WP:AUTO and WP:V (and in Sanchez's case, I have reminded him often about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA).  But Sanchez and I have no other personal or business relationship, so there's no COI. --Elonka 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we asking IPs to disclose all their previous IPs for a question, pointed or not? That is innappropriate. Are we asking logged in editors what their sock accounts are? Lawrence Cohen  21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the pernicious influence of IP-only, newly-registered, and single-purpose accounts on this whole topic, and the blatantly incivil, troll-like comments of the 69.76.37.158, it is actually quite reasonable to ask. This is an Arbitration, not a discussion forum. This behavior goes to the heart of the incivility to which Sanchez has been subjected, and in fact is far tamer than what he has endured elsewhere on the 'net.  Horologium  (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And I agree, but I agree also with the sentiment of the IP's insinuations that a weird double standard exists here, and I am troubled by it. We have reams of evidence of Sanchez's attacks on gays and gay editors, and hateful intolerance. We have on the evidence page almost no evidence of the reverse, beyond a tiny number of BLP violations. Where is the evidence? Would we even be tolerating this sort of nonsense if his statements were "I don't want niggers editing my article," or "I don't want kikes editing my article," instead of "I don't want faggots editing my article"? The history and seeming double standard of extra protections and tolerance and decency for BLP subjects who show none to others is distressing. I don't care who you are, what you do in real life, or how many BLP articles cover you. If you spout off bigoted hate and attack others by calling them faggot, nigger, or kike--and they are all on the same level of hate, in the context that Sanchez used--you get banned. Forever. Wikipedia has zero net benefit to have Sanchez around editing since he has indicated he will not stop attacking minorities. Lawrence Cohen  22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I said i want disclosure. I, in no way, relate behavior linked to ideology to race.  There is a correlations between the political activism of homosexual pro-LGBT people and their editing on the Matt Sanchez article.  I also personally take offense with the simplistic portrayal of me as a homophobe.  By becoming, once again, self-righteous, Lawrence Cohen is trying to pull the victim card by feigning some sort of moral superiority. The issue of sexuality in my article is incredibly pertinent.  If I had done straight porn we wouldn't be having this discussion.  The fact that someone like Cohen refuses to look beyond the identity politics gay victimhood stance is, again, typical and shows that he can't even recognize bias.  It is perfectly valid to know where someone is coming from and the fact is that there are an inordinate amount of homosexuals flocking to edit the Matt Sanchez article. Does that mean they are biased?   Not conclusively, but if I can't ask the question, we'll never know.


 * Also, several editors have written me personally. There's no need to single out one over the others.


 * Be advised PWOK is one of the commentators on this board. Matt Sanchez (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter to me if Elonka has had "off-Wiki" discussions with Bluemarine/Sanchez, seems to me she is trying to help someone who she feels has been misunderstood. I don't share her patience, but I understand her intent.  Durova indicated s/he tried to be a neutral third party to Bluemarine/Sanchez and I see many offers of help and guidance on Sanchez's talk page, which are all good and which he has clearly ignored.  The subject is a college graduate and a journalist, and  should be expected to understand what is being said to him over and over with regard to how the process works.  However, I agree with Lawrence about the double standard at issue - that Bluemarine/Sanchez's attacks would not be tolerated on Wikipedia were they directed towards any other minority group, which is definitely distressing.  They go far beyond "criticism" of a "political movement" and are clearly mean and spiteful personal attacks.  Also, Sanchez's assumption that everyone that finds fault with his behavior is a "gay jihadist" is simply untrue.  You don't have to be gay to find his behavior repugnant.  I also agree that the evidence of Sanchez's violations of policy and general incivility far outweigh that of any other current editor to the Sanchez article. Typing Monkey - (type to me) 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, a thread above this got reverted as probable ban evasion by Pwok. Durova Charge! 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For those who are reviewing the article talkpage and saying that Sanchez's behavior is the worst, I would point out that many other comments have been deleted because they were worse than anything that Sanchez has been saying. There have also been blocks in the past (Durova's above comment is an example), plus Pwok went to the trouble of making a Wikipedia/Sanchez "hate site" which further criticizes Wikipedia, Sanchez, and the editors who were trying to get the article straightened out.  As I understand it, Sanchez is continuing to get a steady stream of hate mail.  I've gotten hate mail too, just for trying to work on the Sanchez article.  Much of the furor, as I understand it, does come from what can most charitably be called "Gay activists".  I think that "activist" is a better term than "jihadist", but the fact still remains that the behavior by these activists (or whatever other term that you choose to call them) has been and continues to be a problem in terms of stabilizing the article.  At times, I've felt like I was trying to have a logical argument with a member of a religious cult.  Or in other words, logic was completely ineffective.


 * To have any hope at longterm stability for the article, we need to find a solution that deals not just with Sanchez, but also with the other SPA accounts that are camping there. For example, any time I look at the article talkpage and see a strongly-worded comment, I find myself checking the contribs of that editor.  It is not uncommon for me to see that that editor has been spending months on Wikipedia, but not working on anything else but the Sanchez topic, and that they're obviously hell-bent on a very particular agenda.  They're not interested in a compromise, they just want to get the article to say what they think it should say.  I find those editors very frustrating to work with, and I can imagine that for Sanchez, it's absolutely maddening, especially when he gets blocked and they don't.  The agenda-pushing is a clear problem, and we're going to have to address it.  To be clear: Blocking Sanchez will not address the issue of the SPAs.  Further, I am extremely concerned that some of the SPAs are probably absolutely gloating that through this ArbCom case, they may have the possibility of completely removing Sanchez from any say in his own article. So I'd rather that we didn't play into that kind of game.  Or in other words, if our goal is to stabilize the article, then instead of us first blocking the article's subject, and then trying to deal with the SPAs, I'd rather see a topic-ban on any comments from SPAs first, before we take the step of blocking Sanchez. --Elonka 02:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There should be more transparency. If someone is going to edit they should have a name and be a real purpose.  The most rabid people are the ones who believe they get by with both anonymity and impunity.


 * I also stand by the comments and opinions I have written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, unless Sanchez is put on full probation against attacking minorities, if he will not agree to stop, he can't be here--there is no excuse for slinging epithets at minorities. It doesn't matter what minority. Would you be defending him if he was railing against blacks or Jews? He also needs no editing rights for us to protect his article. That's what article probation and vigilance are for, he can always contact people directly or preferably via OTRS. Lawrence Cohen 04:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have specifically and directly asked Sanchez here if he will agree to stop that stuff. I'll post a notification of this on his talk page as well. Lawrence Cohen 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is unfair to falsely (imho) characterize Pwok's site as a "hate site". What it rather appears to be is a perhaps strenuous objection to what Pwok felt was a concerted effort here, to protect Sanchez from his own sourced statements, and a bending of the rules to allow Sanchez to continue attacking other editors while suffering a rather moderate response himself. Sanchez has continued to provoke others by calling us gay jihadists and so forth, and yet certain editors here are presenting a false front that we've provoked him. What actually ocurred was that Sanchez starting making mass reverts and deleting sourced information and we stopped him. That's when the name-calling began, and that's when Pwok was banned. The provocation was never a one-way street. Wjhonson (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The gordian knot
To set things out as I see the matter, this case deals with three main issues:
 * Conduct by Matt Sanchez.
 * Conduct by short-lived single purpose accounts and IP addresses. This appears to correlate to offsite attacks against Matt Sanchez.
 * One article that's a BLP powderkeg.

I've stated several times that I don't defend Matt Sanchez's conduct, and I mean it. His behavior has yet to diverge from quite a few other editors I've dealt with in the past who were on the trajectory to sitebanning. This was the kind of situation that usually needs arbitration so I waited for it to get here. Now the question is what to do. Durova Charge! 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a discussion of bias. I find that many of the articles of conservatives on wiki are frequently slanted and vandalized. Melanie Morgan and even Ann Coulter are great examples. I don't see the same tensions with someone like Rosie O'Donnell or Whoopi Goldberg. Are there more liberals editing or are they simply more prone to vandalize? In my case, it seems that the radical left-leaning fringe that is the LGBT is hell bent on venting frustrations through the article. Without some counter-force, I don't see how my article can remain unbiased. Matt Sanchez (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop with the attacks Matt. Just grow up, take responsibility for your actions and editing, and realize that you aren't innocent here, that you are just as guilty as the anonymous editors. Calling people names like "jihadists" and "radical left-leaning fringe" isn't helping your cause any. ALLSTAR  echo 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, the problem is that attacks like the ones detailed here and calling people "faggots" in a derogatory manner, or ANY manner like you're doing, is never acceptable per our policies. Unless you are willing to stop that stuff, you have no future on this websit as an editor, full stop. It is not acceptable to attack others, ever. Nothing excuses that. You attacking gays by calling them fags, effete, and the other epithets is on the level of if you had called me a kike. That is not acceptable in society, and it's not acceptable here. Unless you are willing to stop that stuff, you have no future on this website as an editor, full stop. Editing here is a priviledge, not a right.  Lawrence Cohen  04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, I could certainly show you examples of biographies both left and right that have come under attack. In very few instances has the subject's response been as unseemly as yours.  We have volunteers who would gladly address your problem so that you wouldn't need to raise it yourself, except to send an occasional e-mail or post to a messageboard.  I've even published an article offsite on how to manage this type of problem; the only reason I don't link to it here is because it could be construed as COI for me to do so.  Yes, trolling is wrong.  It happens across the political spectrum.  Your reaction worsens the problem in many ways.  If you continue to point fingers at everyone except yourself, and continue to post in this manner, then the likely result will be at least a topic ban from the biography page about you, if not an outright siteban.  I'm not pushing for that to happen; I'm asking you to open your eyes and adapt to site policies.  Durova  Charge! 04:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Matt, politically-motivated vandalism is something that occurs from editors of all political persuasions; Michael Moore is a popular target, as are articles on Intelligent Design and related topics. However, that is not relevant to the issue. Whether or not you agree with other editors, or like other editors, or respect other editors, you must remain civil, and not attack them for being gay, or liberal, or any other thing with which you disagree. Disagree with the content of their contributions, and stop simply assuming that people are out to get you because they have a different worldview than you. Remember that among the gay and left-of-center editors here, three of them (WjBscribe, SatyrTN, and Aleta) have consistently removed the biographical detail you are most opposed to having added to your article, and several of the others have defended you at one time or another against the agenda-pushers and the personal attacks. However, you have attacked the motives of them and all gay and liberal editors with multiple attacks against homosexuals and progressives based not on the edits themselves, but on the editors. Wikipedia is not your blog, or PWOK's little circle-jerk, or any other online forum where invective is permitted and expected; this is an encyclopedia, and even the discussion pages should be civilized and orderly. Yes, you have been attacked over and over off Wikipedia, but here on Wikipedia, the degradation of the level of discourse is coming primarily from you. If you have looked at the list of reverted personal attacks I provided in my evidence section, you will see a lot of insults you never saw, because they were promptly reverted (by many editors, including me, WjBscribe, Aleta, Durova, and others). You have been given an extraordinary amount of leeway because of the external forces at work, but that has come to an end. If you do not stop attacking other editors (for any reason), you will be banned from Wikipedia, and will end up with no say at all on your article. Do you really want that to occur? Think about it long and hard, because arbitration is the final step, and the decisions of the arbitrators are final and binding.  Horologium  (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After thinking about this for a while, I realized that the simplest way to sum this up is "Don't discuss the sexual orientation or political views of other editors". The sexuality of other editors is almost never relevant, and an editor's political views are only relevant if there is an obvious bias, which will be noticed by several editors. If you feel that something is biased or factually incorrect, address it on the talk page of the article, without discussing the editor or his motives. This is especially true of the named editors who have participated in this arbritration; while several of them have markedly different views from you on parts of this article, all of them should be considered good-faith editors. Discuss the edit, not the editor.  Horologium  (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's inappropriate to label Charles Wilson/PWOK's site as a "little circle jerk." I've read through the site and think it is comprehensive and factual. It sharply criticizes Wikipedia, but I think that criticism is entirely deserved. PWOK/Wilson asserts that Wikipedia's article is false, promotional of Sanchez, and censored; and that Wikipedia's insiders have actively worked to exclude true information at odds with Sanchez's views; and that Wikipedia has bent and ignored its rules to do that. All of this is true. It's not comfortable to be criticized, but that's the nature of criticism. It's odd that Wikipedia is so hostile toward free expression, at least when that free expression is factual. It's unseemly to call that site a "hate site" or "a little circle jerk," when everything there appears to be true. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, the last sequence of edits made by Sanchez (since removed by the Arbcom clerk) have eliminated any possibility that Sanchez can edit the project in a productive manner. Insisting that his edits are appropriate demonstrates that he is manifestly unsuited as a participant in a collaborative effort such as this. The renewal of legal threats (against another user and against Wikipedia itself) only adds to it.  Horologium  (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What "external forces at work" ? Wjhonson (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SPAs
Would it be helpful to list here the names of the editors that we would like to consider removing from the article? For example, anyone who has: That would make it easier for ArbCom to review editing patterns, and perhaps issue blocks (or probation) in a more even-handed manner. --Elonka 11:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Issued personal attacks at the talkpage
 * Edit-warred
 * Shown a single-agenda focus (perhaps defined as someone where over 80% of their edits are on the Sanchez issue?)


 * I agree a list would be useful evidence, as the original list of parties may need to be further extended. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This would not help. It would harm the project. Wjhonson (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal request
In this edit, Matt requests that the bio is deleted, followed by a legal threat which, combined with another two he also made in quick succession, has resulted in Matt being blocked again. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support a deletion of the bio, per the subject's request. That would address both his privacy concerns, and help de-escalate the disruption to Wikipedia. --Elonka 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt Sanchez appears to be more than notable, however. I would oppose this except through proper AFD and community-based normal channels, but I would definitely evaluate all sources on such an AFD if you nominated it. Lawrence Cohen  17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support deletion and recreation as an "incident" or "controversy", rather than a full biography. Deletion will remove much of the nastiness and bile that Sanchez and his detractors dumped on Wikipedia. Recreation as an incident (the outing of his past history as a porn star) will satisfy the desire of those who wish to document it on wikipedia, and eliminate some of the self-promotional tone that has plagued the article; changing it from a biography eliminates the need to discuss the rest of the subject's life. Running this through AfD will likely turn into a circus, since the AfD page cannot be semi-protected; the activists who hate Sanchez will overrun the discussion.  Horologium  (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only trick is that he's notable for more than that, as a professional war correspondent, and was famous for being harassed as a Marine before he was famous for being outed as a porn star by the media--the outing as a porn star was as a result of his earlier work. Lawrence Cohen  19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sanchez is a public figure known for his association with, and promotion of, an anti-gay political agenda, while having a personal background that includes participation in more than 40 gay porn videos and in prostitution. All of that is verified. His notability is as one in a long string of anti-gay conservatives later shown to have been gay themselves. Thus, to label an article as a "controversy" might work, but it does not work to overlook the salient facts, which are: his political activism, his prostitution, his pornography, the Marine Corps case against him. I also think an article should mention Wikipedia's own record in seeking to exclude unfavorable information, promote Mr. Sanchez's career, and libel his critics. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Horologium that if this goes to AfD, it could just become a circus that further escalates the problem. The best solution here is probably one by ArbCom or WP:OFFICE, for them to just come in, delete the article, salt it, and then we can all move on with more productive pursuits. --Elonka 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If that happens, just saying, it will become a protected fiasco on the other end as well with people complaining. And the Arbcom doesn't do content matters, I thought, which leaves office? How often do they do that? I'm all for whatever works, but I just think not getting a wide community stamp of approval is asking for ongoing DRV, AFD, and so on... Lawrence Cohen 19:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2)He didn't have an article in Wikipedia until he was outed, despite his appearance at the CPAC conference and his op-ed in the New York Post. Nor were his alter-egos of Rod Majors or Pierre La Branche listed; they were just two more non-notable porn stars without awards or independent media coverage. Try searching Wikipedia for Crystal Gail Mangum and Little Fatty (both articles are now protected redirects); there were BLP concerns on both of these people, despite the fact that both received extensive media coverage, and in the case of the second individual, he was attempting to capitalize on the (originally unwanted) notoriety of an internet meme. While the war correspondent thing is debatable (half of the people who participated in the discussion were opposed, and half supported), that in and of itself isn't notable either. Without the outing, there is nothing that would create an article to satisfy notability, and it falls into the grey zone of WP:BLP1E. Additionally, a new article would eliminate the COI and AUTO tags that will remain with this article for eternity. I really don't see Sanchez ever being allowed to edit on Wikipedia again at this point, so a new article would develop without his contributions. Horologium  (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm favor of whatever works with finality to solve the problems and has sufficient support to make it stick. Lawrence Cohen  20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a situation similar to Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Angela Beesley; it's a contentious article on someone who marginally meets notability standards that the subject wishes to have deleted. It may be worth sending Matt Sanchez to AFD; per WP:BLP, if there is no consensus to delete or keep an article that the subject wishes to have deleted, the closing admin can take the subject's wishes into account. Sending this to AFD could lead to an ideal "delete, then recreate as a neutral stub" outcome that could solve the relevant WP:BLP issues while maintaining claims of notability. --Core desat 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to unprotect the article, I'd be willing to sponsor the AFD on it to that end. Lawrence Cohen  20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(OD) OK, I've put up an edit protected request here: Talk:Matt_Sanchez. Probably best to leave it protected, though. I'll do the AFD back end page. Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) And done: Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez (3rd nomination). I just need an admin to add the AFD template to the protected article. Lawrence Cohen 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hacking, bank fraud stuff/allegations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluemarine#Article_up_for_deletion

"Please note, both my bank accounts and my e-mail account security has been violated due to this article and as a direct result of editor Wjhonson. If there is some official procedure for requesting deletion, I need to have it sent to me. Do consider this a formal request. Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)"

Not sure who or how, but someone may need to deal with this. Lawrence Cohen 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How exactly is this Wikipedia's fault? His email address isn't posted anywhere in this article. Everything that appears here also appears in other published sources, including interviews where Matt Sanchez publicized this information himself.Reelm (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the recent Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch case specifically advised editors to alert the Arbitration committee of offsite harassment. I have no idea whether this allegation is true, but it's serious enough that I'll enter a formal motion to have Wjhonson's name added to the case.  Durova  Charge! 06:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about Elonka Dunin's off-site collaboration with Mr. Sanchez, and her assertion off-site that Charles Wilson, an editor who was banned at Wikipedia and who subsequently created a website about the case, has AIDS? I've challenged Ms. Dunin to say whether or not she made such an assertion. I know she did, because I have the evidence. Will that be included in the ArbComm proceedings, too, or is Wikipedia's ArbComm a one-sided star chamber whose purpose is little more than to defend its insiders? Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sanchez is, most likely, lying about any "hacking" or "bank fraud." His on- and off-Wiki behavior has been rife with clumsy deception.  Most likely, this is just another ruse.  When Durova asked him to provide evidence to the ArbComm, Sanchez lashed out, as usual here.  In other words, Sanchez has no evidence at all.  Because he made the whole thing up.  --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Sanchez's accounts were hacked is irrelevant to the matter at hand. He could be God's own sad victim, but it wouldn't change what makes him notable for Wikipedia's purposes, or the facts surrounding his notability. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eleemosynary here, this is probably what has been done. Its a completely false accusation made by BlueMarine. Its obvious he only did this to make a stronger request for deleting the article . Look at this personal attack as well. Its 100% obvious whats going on. Bluemarine made a false accusation. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose one other point to consider is that his claim to fame - his harassment complaint at Columbia - was never substantiated. Independent witnesses actually refuted his claims. It seems he has a track record of making false accusations. This absolutely must be taken into account the next time he accuses Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor of criminal behavior.Reelm (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's best not to speculate whether Matt Sanchez has actual evidence or not. That will be apparent soon enough. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing improper about Elonka's mentoring him. Editors in dispute resolution often get mentors and site custom regards that as a good thing: the goal is to learn to adjust to policies and standards. I know nothing about supposed offsite assertions she may have made regarding Pwok; without evidence such claims are meaningless. If the IP addresses that insulted me and were blocked as Pwok socks were indeed Pwok, then this individual's personal attacks were even worse than Matt Sanchez's - and both sets of attacks were entirely unwarranted. There is no conspiracy to censor content. We're just volunteers here, doing our best in good faith to manage a difficult situation. Durova Charge! 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa! Hold on there. Elonka is mentoring (or was) Bluemarine?  Where is this documented?  I'd like to read that.  Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Tennessee Jed 4415 is repeating Pwok's claims that Sanchez and Elonka have communicated off-Wiki, adding as sinister a spin as possible to off-wiki contact. Just read through the contributions of Pwok's various alternate personae for more of the same.  Horologium  (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read this series of exchanges between Elonka and BlueMarineWjhonson (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did that come from?!Reelm (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it seems that we now have at least some inkling that Sanchez's statement about his *email* seems to have some confirmation.... Frankly I was quite surprised.  I had the skeptical idea that both sides were bluffing. So today I learned something.  Go me.  Can't say it makes me feel great.  Makes me feel like we're sitting on the edge of another fiasco.  I have no idea how it will turn out, but I can't see good right now.  My faith in the process could use a little moral boast.Wjhonson (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Today's developments
For people who are new here, this site's standard response to disclosures of other editors' personal information is to Oversight the disclosure and indef block the user who disclosed it, whether or not the disclosure is true. A post that claims to be someone else's private correspondence has several problems: it could be totally made up, or partly real but doctored, and there's no way to verify it without the headers - but to post the headers would be an additional violation of privacy. Furthermore, it's copyright infringement. And if the information is (even partly) true and obtained by hacking, then there are additional problems.

The only certain thing is that the editor who did the posting exercised extremely poor judgement. I don't trust such things because I've known them falsified in past occasions, and the falsified parts were always the most objectionable. If someone does have sensitive material that deserves the attention of the arbitration committee, please contact the case clerk or an arbitrator in order to submit it. Durova Charge! 07:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Tennessee Jed is watching this page or not, but if he is, could you clarify. Are you saying that he could send those same emails (with headers) to the ArbCom email list ? Wjhonson (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he would have a lot of explaining to do about how he got his hands on them, if there's any validity to his post today at all. And if he's unable to do that in a satisfactory manner, then if I were on the committee I would have very serious doubts about his reliability.  Yesterday Matt Sanchez claimed that his e-mail and his bank account had been hacked.  Today we see what purports to be e-mails of his.  Either we suppose Jed's post was a complete fabrication, or else it looks very suspicious indeed.  And that raises more serious questions: could a man who stoops to hacking - and very possibly stealing also - be trusted not to lie?  Durova  Charge! 10:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I found the answer I was looking for in your own case here where they state that private correspondence can be sent directly to the committee (presumably via their private email list).Wjhonson (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per your comment above : *If* Jed really does have copies of the emails, their contents are pretty damaging. If he doesn't then Matt's account was never hacked, and we have two bluffers on our hands.  So whether Jed lies is not relevant.  The question is, are the emails real or not.  If Jed is looking here, we have a precedent in your case. Wjhonson (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One huge difference between the Durova case and this one is that the alleged e-mails were posted by a third party who quite possibly acquired them through unethical (or illegal) methods. In the Durova case, the e-mail that was posted by Giano was something that was forwarded to him by an unidentified recipient who was sympathetic to his point of view. Unless you are trying to claim that either Sanchez or Elonka sent it to Pwok (let's not be coy here), it's not an equivalent case.  Horologium  (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on that, it's for the committee to decide.Wjhonson (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Until evidence is presented that 1) the emails are legit and/or 2) they were obtained illegally, such conjecture as Horologium's gets us nowhere. The emails could just have easily been faked and sent by a Sanchez crony hoping to throw dust in the referees' eyes.  --Eleemosynary (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or the emails could be real, and sent by Sanchez or one of his cronies.Reelm (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) It would appear there's a stronger possibility they were real. And also it would appear I'm off the hook for having anything to do with it :) Charles Wilson makes it clear here how it happened and it's a bit swarmy, so make sure your children aren't looking. Wjhonson (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)