Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

message: Please accept this case. It is not a content dispute. This user (User:Bluemarine/User:Mattsanchez) has frequently violated WP:COI with his work on his own article, as seen here. 294 of his total 1535 edits are to Matt Sanchez, as recently as today, 5 January 2008. He may or may not have been endless baited by "homosexual" editors, as some have stated, but there no excuse for rampant homophobia and bigoted statements, which are forbidden under Wikipedia:NPA#Personal attacks. As I said on ANI, would this have been tolerated even 1/10th as long if he had complained about Blacks, Jews, or other groups editing his article? There is a Request For Comments on him located here. Please read that. There are currently multiple ANI threads related to this individual as of 5 January 2008 (permanent links, thank you Jehochman), here (longest and  most detailed), here, and here. An older thread on this can be found here from January 2. More evidence of abusive bigotry can be found here. Lawrence Cohen 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] 

message: I also would request that ArbCom consider this case, although my reasons differ from those of Allstarecho and Lawrence Cohen. It is apparent that both Sanchez and his detractors are at fault in this case; Sanchez's attitude towards other editors (particularly LGBT and left-of-center editors) is appalling, and needs to be addressed, but the repeated attempts to add BLP-violation material into his article (which, unfortunately, is coming from the same LGBT and left-of-center editors) despite dozens of warnings (spread out through the 11 pages of talk archives on a 10-month old article), the parade of single-purpose accounts attacking Sanchez, and repeated links to a site dedicated to destroying Sanchez personally (run by an indefinitely blocked editor, the site also specifically attacks two Wikipedia admins by name) are issues that need to be addressed as well. 
Right now, there is an issue of undue weight, since a small group of editors stripped out almost all of the information that does not relate to Sanchez's porn career. This article is billed as a biography, but right now, it is little more than a retelling of a rather salacious story, nothing more. If it is a biography, some of the recently deleted material needs to be restored, or the article needs to be retitled and reorganized as "Matt Sanchez Controversy" or something similar.
Regardless of the disposition of this case, Sanchez needs to be topic-banned from editing his article or related articles (such as Scott Thomas Beauchamp), and some of his persistent detractors need to find other topics on Wikipedia as well; two of the editors listed as involved parties have fewer than 10% of their edits on Wikipedia on articles that do not relate to Sanchez.
Regarding Mr. Cohen's insinuation that there is an element of homophobia behind Sanchez's limited block history, it needs to be pointed out that one of the reasons Sanchez has been given some latitude is the libelous behavior exhibited by other editors on an article about him, which is quite different than ordinary, garden-variety personal attacks. 
Regarding Allstarecho's assertion about the timeline, at the time that Sanchez requested an unblock (13:38, 5 January 2008), the article was at this revision, which is arguably libelous, and section 1.3 is the likely reason behind the OTRS lock. That section was repeatedly added by one editor, and repeatedly reverted by an administrator. It was removed two minutes later by another admin, but Sanchez had already made the legal threat, which needs to be retracted by Sanchez before this case can effectively proceed. 
Horologium (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Horologium|Horologium]]

message: Though I haven't edited the Matt Sanchez article recently, I was very involved with it in mid-2007, and worked very hard to try and come up with a consensus rewrite. I am disappointed to see that the article remains unstable, and do agree that ArbCom intervention is needed.  The core of the dispute is that Matt Sanchez, a right-wing blogger/columnist, also has a well-documented history as an actor in gay pornographic films, which has led to multiple accusations against him being made in the blogosphere, some of which accusations, such as that he was also a prostitute, were publicized enough that they were picked up in major media. Sanchez himself has made some public but ambiguous statements about whether or not the allegations were true. 
The wrangling over the Wikipedia article basically hinges on how much space should be given to the prostitution allegations, or whether they should be listed at all, per WP:BLP. Some editors believe that it is blatantly obvious that Sanchez was a prostitute, and that the article should include information about it. Others believe that this obviousness is only evident through connecting the dots in violation of WP:NOR, and the information should be minimized.  Others believe that the prostitution allegations shouldn't be mentioned at all, per BLP.  The situation is made further complex by the fact that Sanchez himself continues to try and edit the article, and generates personal attacks and homophobic slurs on the talkpage.  Some of these attacks can be seen as understandable, considering the attacks that are being generated on Sanchez himself, both on- and off-wiki.  Other comments and actions by Sanchez, in my opinion, have been far past anything that I could consider acceptable or justified.  My own feeling is that ArbCom should implement a strict civility and revert parole on the article and its talkpage, with rapid blocks issued to anyone (including Sanchez) who resorts to personal attacks or edit-warring. --Elonka 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Elonka|Elonka]]

message: This situation needs arbitration.  I first noticed it three months ago when I responded to a content RFC and discovered that a user conduct RFC had also been running for a month.  Formal dispute resolution has not helped this situation.  Previous RFAR statements have already described Matt Sanchez's conduct; I make no excuse for it.  I informed him of the legitimate ways to address BLP issues and offered mentorship.  I even offered to nominate the article for deletion per WP:NOT#Not a battleground and WP:BLP.  He preferred to continue the dispute.  I can also affirm that he has been getting trolled by throwaway accounts of people who know a few things about Wikipedia.  Here are a couple of examples of attacks to his userpage.  I urge the committee to accept this request and examine the conduct of all parties. DurovaCharge! 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]]

message: The conduct of users on both sides of this issue has been appalling; per Durova's evidence, Sanchez has been trolled in the past, but Sanchez's own attitude toward resolving disputes on the article on him is quite incivil (with blatant personal attacks against various users). I had blocked him indefinitely earlier after noticing multiple threads on WP:ANI about his behavior (1, 2, 3), a failed RFC, numerous warnings, and a few blocks, including one for legal threats. I was hesitant to shorten the block at first, but after looking into the history of the situation and in light of recent WP:BLP violations that had been re-inserted into the article after Sanchez was blocked, I asked WJBscribe to reduce the block length to one week pending an arbitration case. I urge the Committee to accept this case to examine Sanchez's conduct, as well as that of others involved in the dispute (which went beyond a simple content dispute long ago). If this case is accepted before the block has expired, I have no problem with unblocking him so he can participate. 
Note to clerks: Bluemarine is no longer indefinitely blocked; when I agreed to WJBscribe reducing Bluemarine's block length, I asked him to leave Mattsanchez blocked to avoid sockpuppet abuse. --Coredesat 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Coredesat|Coredesat]]

message: I didn't see a place to post that Sanchez/Bluemarine's continual COI, self-promotion and use of socks on Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy should be given a hearing as well. I wish to avoid dealing with him direct so remain anonymous so do with this whatever you feel is correct. 71.139.2.52 (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine at [[Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy]]

message: I believe the RfC has plenty of evidence and also suggest that those investigating consider reviewing both Matt's contributions as well as Bluemarine's. I've found almost all of his work to by overly POV and POINTY towards those he doesn't agree with. I used to think he could be a good resource and editor here but I doubt that now. I also share the concern that if he has a biography then there should be a way for him to correct any mistakes, however, his M.O. seems to be to remove anything unflattering and adding items which don't seem to be supported. I personally have taken breaks from that article in particular and wikipedia in general because I found Matt's attacks on me personally and against all editors who disagree with him (lumped together by him as homosexuals) as extremely uncivil and off-putting. I made a good faith effort to encourage Matt to cool off but that lasted all of a few hours until he would pepper the entire talk page with comments which, IMHO, seemed to be a concerted effort to distract and disperse any who didn't agree with his version, which seemed to be almost everyone. At the same time arguing against items he didn't agree with, often by also disparaging the contributors, which he had been warned repeatedly not to do, Matt would introduce blog listings or other dubious items that he felt should be included. In hindsight I wished I had seen the talk pages of Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy where the atmosphere was a bit less chaotic and no-nonsense. I feel like Matt played us all and did it well, now it's time for him to take a break. He should also accept that he had a career as a gay porn star and escort and even if he regrets it now, it helped propel him onto the national radar and (the revelation of his porn past) seems to be the height of his notoriety as of yet. I feel bad that Pwok or others may have attacked him for their own reasons related to his notoriety but disagree that that justifies him attacking others repeatedly after many warnings. I also don't think it justifies him gaming the system to stall his article being vetted and improved and I fully expect him, at this point, to roadblock in anyway the updating of his article to reflect wikipedia's standards. Quite a few editors have been extremely patient with Matt and I think that patience has worn too thin at this point. Someday he could potentially still be a great editor but for wikipedia's sake I hope he takes some time off and focus on his other writings. Benjiboi 05:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Benjiboi 

message: In order to allow Bluemarine to participate in this case, the account has been unblocked and strongly warned to refrain from editing any other pages at this time.  If anybody notices the user editing outside the case pages, please leave a note either here or at Clerks Noticeboard and either myself or another clerk will take deal with it. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Bluemarine|Bluemarine]] has been unblocked 

message: Having been involved with this article for some time, I am not convinced that Matt Sanchez *can* become a neutral editor on his article or any.  He is an extremely aggressive editor.  I have felt for some time that he has been treated with kid gloves and I have no idea why.  We certainly would not let Ann Coulter remove negative things from her own article and we shouldn't in this case either.  Matt however is too involved to be able to leave it.  He has demonstrated that a sufficient number of times already.  So this issue is unlikely to go away unless he is indef-blocked.  IMHO. Wjhonson (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that Matt has now responded on-page and states again that he is "going to upload the second interview".  We heard that months ago, but it's irrelevant anyway.  Just to refresh everyone on the details that his page *should* have contained (I admit I'm a bit anal) you can see my article "Matt Sanchez" on http://www.countyhistorian.com. Still the most popular page on my site, amazingly enough. Wjhonson (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would ArbCom also take into account that aggressive admins have been blocking discussion on the Matt Sanchez talk page where we've been having an actual productive dialog on some of these issues?  In addition I've now been threatened by two seperate admins Quadell‎ and Shell Kinney‎ with my own supposed BLP violations which I completely dispute both that I have and second that their claims are even covered under BLP in the first place.  I've asked both admins to include themselves here.  This is turning into another force-circus with whoever has *power* trying to silence everyone else.  Thank you. Wjhonson (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Wjhonson

message: I haven't been involved with this case at all, but looking at the diffs provided to show why Coredesat blocked Bluemarine, I don't see that any of them merited a block. This and this are expressions of opinion, not attacks. It would be inappropriate to attack other individual editors with anti-gay epithets; however, WP:NPA does not prohibit criticism of homosexuals as a group or of gay rights activism. Opposition to homosexual practices, or to the gay rights political agenda, are perfectly legitimate political standpoints, and I dislike the political correctness which prohibits any public criticism of homosexuality or of any minority group, while allowing (and indeed encouraging) criticism of the US government, Christianity, conservatism and the military. As I wasn't involved with the case and haven't fully reviewed the background to it, I wouldn't go so far as to state that the block was inappropriate; however, the stated reasons for the block are certainly inadequate. I can't escape the impression that Matt Sanchez has been an unfortunate victim of Wikipedia's inherent liberal bias.
While editing one's own article is discouraged under WP:COI, it is not prohibited, nor should it be. Indeed, I would say that the spirit (if not the letter) of BLP permits people to correct inaccurate or misleading information in articles about themselves. This demonstrates a bona fide concern with factual inaccuracies in the article. As I said, I do not know whether his editing has been tendentious enough to merit a block. But neither Allstarecho nor anyone else has presented evidence to that effect. The assertion that he is trying to whitewash his own past may be true, but again, it has not been backed up by any evidence.
I'm not criticising the blocking admin, and I also accept that when Sanchez made a legal threat, it was legitimate to block him per WP:NLT. I will, however, be conducting an independent review into this case and will be offering my considered opinion to the Committee, together with relevant evidence. WaltonOne 12:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note concerning the above: Per my discussion with Lawrence Cohen below, and the evidence he has presented, I am satisfied that the block was not made for political reasons, and that there were legitimate grounds for treating Matt Sanchez's comments as violations of WP:NPA, since he has made comments attacking the sexuality of individual editors with whom he has been in conflict. I presently reserve judgment as to whether the block applied was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances.) WaltonOne 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside comment from Walton

message: Matt Sanchez was recently banned for a period of one year, however he was today (06 Feb 2008) caught editing whilst using a self identifying sockpuppet, apparently with the express purpose of dealing with the article we hold on him, and in particular, a photo which could facilitate identity theft, according to Matt. 
Blocking the account and saying the user is banned doesn't make this problem go away however, Wikipedia has an article on the editor in question and it must comply with all the policies that are applicable to the page, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. It is not unreasonable for this user to expect that he can communicate with Wikipedia and ensure that the article is compliant with our policies.
In an ideal world, such communication would be through the m:OTRS system, however there are numerous backlogs and even in an ideal world, OTRS often takes time to deal with tickets, so problems often go unresolved for a few hours. This being the case, there really needs to be an appropriate clause in Matt's ban here which permits him to comment on the article on-wiki, in order that any changes can be made, as necessary. The article in question is reasonably popular, with around 200 edits last month (January), and it's an article that does tend to require protection occasionally, there are edit wars over the article and it does tend to stray from complying with our policies on occasion. 
I'm hoping that the Committee will look at permitting Matt the ability to edit, perhaps just his talk page, and we could then transclude that onto a subpage of the article's talk page, in order that his concerns can be addressed and acted upon if necessary. Nick (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Following comment by Thatcher):
I know normally OTRS would be the way to go, and I've asked that in future he's nudged towards us, but there's pretty big backlogs at the moment we're trying to deal with, it could be a while before we get to his message, he knows how to edit Wikipedia, surely we can ask that he raises concerns on-wiki so that they may be addressed. I'm not talking about genuine editing privileges, simply the ability to comment on his own biography as necessary. Nick (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Nick|Nick]] 

message: I just want to point out, as if we don't all know, that Matt has plenty of blogspace and several private emails in case he wants to comment on his article.Wjhonson (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 

message: (Following comment by Sam Blacketer):
We also don't know who that is, anyone could have registered that username.  Regardless of the provocation, Sanchez' behavior was pretty foul, and while rehabilitation is not impossible, it is certainly too soon.   It will be important to demonstrate (for example) that he can work civilly and productively with the OTRS volunteers. Thatcher 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: The arbitration case has only just closed and I think it is a bit too soon to go changing the finding. Matt Sanchez had his editing privileges withdrawn because he misused them in attacking other users, and there is no indication so far that he has undergone an epiphany. In any case, of his three known accounts, only one has its talk page protected, so he is able to use the others to communicate. With OTRS, the simpler factual corrections are normally the quickest to be made. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: I request a complete lift and reversal of the indefinite topic ban against me on Matt Sanchez. I'm quite disappointed at having to take this step to clear my name and worked to avoid having to take this step and indicated so during the AE discussion. I'm surprised that my contributions to Wikipedia was treated in this manner and the same assuming of good faith we extend to all others seemed to evaporate towards me despite my obvious attempts to communicate civilly and directly. I feel the blocking admin may have been personally invested in driving me away from the article by their involvement in numerous OTRS tickets from banned user Bluemarine (who is one of Matt Sanchez's accounts) and making edits on Sanchez's behalf. I appreciate the work that OTRS volunteers do and that they are trying to work with someone who earned a community RfC and Arbcom ban for voluminous and personal attacks amongst other issues. However, despite Sanchez's assertions that I, and others, are a part of a "radical left-leaning fringe that is the LGBT is hell bent on venting frustrations through the article", many editors, including admins and LGBT editors, worked to follow policy and work with Sanchez and tried to look past his personal attacks and unique style of writing accusatory statements. When information and verifiable statements at odds with Sanchez's views were presented he routinely would fill up the talk page sometimes contradicting himself. It's understandable for someone to want their biography to only show them in the best possible light but topic-banning editors because the subject of the article doesn't like their tone doesn't seem like a inspiring direction for the project and in Sanchez's case the list of user's he's found problematic would quickly add up. 
In short, the article exists because his notability is as a former gay porn star who became a marine and then the poster-child for US social conservatives thus placing Sanchez in the center of several current American culture wars including issues of gays in the military. (As referenced by the Military Times as a "don't ask, don't tell" issue) I personally don't care about his sexuality or expression thereof, I do care about presenting sexuality issues correctly and as factually as possible. In addition, I felt I was helping Sanchez avoid abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion and personal gain by insisting that claims be reliably sourced.
The other reason his case received national attention was that it was revealed he also was a "gay" escort (an escort for men who have sex with men) who mostly advertised in gay male magazines with Sanchez stating he was an escort (prostitute) on the internationally broadcast Fox News Channel Hannity & Colmes show. Sanchez stated (in the Arbcom case and elsewhere on wiki) that he later retracted his statements but no proof of that retraction seems to have ever been presented to balance out his earlier statements. I have regularly and consistently stressed than anything about his escort work has to be well sourced and neutral. I believe he is now being coached how to self-publish retractions on his blog. I can certainly see why Sanchez wouldn't want anyone around who was basically saying we print what's verifiable not just what you'd like. It wasn't until Sanchez's Arbcom ban and the related AfD during his Arbcom case that the circular talk page dynamic seemed to disappear. In fairness, he may have also been targeted by SPAs but that's not a license to abuse those you disagree with. Once Sanchez was banned I worked to clean up the talk page, archives and keep the discussion constructive and as focussed as possible in a collaborative fashion. (See January's archive for instance.) Even when folks disagreed we mostly stayed constructive and tried to find workable solutions. My contributions were mostly constructive and it would we a stretch to paint me as simply trying to disrupt or otherwise compromise Wikipedia's policies.
JzG (Guy), in what I feel was a somewhat condescending, impatient, confrontational and personal manner, bordering on uncivil, IMHO, rather than simply warning me in any manner suggested instead I be topic-banned without giving me any notice I had breached policy or was heading in a bad direction. When I responded to all the stated concerns he repeated that this ban was really no big deal. When I sought guidance I was told I should take my case to JzG (Guy) directly to see what it would take to have the ban lifted. He deleted the request only stating " Discussion at AE board" in the edit summary.  Later JzG (Guy) admitted he was unwilling to budge on the issue. I sent two email to the Arbcom elist per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee stating  I got no response.
Finally, I believe it states, "[E]ditors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement...in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals."  If I've overstepped a line or indeed violated some policy then please point it out, perhaps a warning would have served the purpose of ensuring the "tone" of edits remained civil and constructive. I wish it had been considered and attempted, instead I have been shown what I consider to be disrespect and a leap of bad faith. Banjeboi 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 

message: The original WP:AE report that triggered the topic ban by JzG is archived here.  (I closed this report.)  The follow-up discussion of Benjiboi's protest is archived here.  14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by GRBerry 

message: Having been involved with this for a long time myself I have to agree with Guy's assessment, unfortunately. All the regulars on Matt Sanchez should find some other pages to work on. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Lawrence 

message: Benjiboi wrote:
Although I can see how you might piece together the above timeline it's not one I've ever seen. Instead most of the accounts I've read have been more along the lines that his former clients or at least those who claimed to be his former clients blew the whistle to the bloggers.
Former Matt Sanchez clients have made statements?  Where? 
Benjiboi is the only person to describe Sanchez as a vlogger.  What does that mean?  And does he have a source?  I haven't found one anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushdittobot (talk • contribs)  
03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to Rushdittobot. It doesn't matter where those former clients, or more precisely those who claimed to be former clients made any statements unless it's in a reliable source that we can use. I've yet to see any usable content of that nature but if it interests you take it to the article's talk page, I imagine you'll get the same answer. On YouTube Matt has his own vlogging channel. A vlogger is a blogger who also does video blogs, hardly a controversial term but if it just seems off-base then, again, take it to that talk page, this forum is not to make cases for or against article content. I will assume good faith that you just happenned along that talkpage thread on Thatcher's talkpage and naturally decided that you should comment here. Sadly, the experience with that article has been socks both for and against Sanchez and this seems to be along those lines. Banjeboi 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Rushdittobot

message: *The whole point of an article probation is to reduce the thrashing and tsuris associated with heated topics. It's not the faithless editors who have to worry about article probation; they get taken care of in other fashions. Good editors, however, can also cause problems, sometimes by their very presence. That their intentions are good, and that their history is sterling, does not alter the fact that their work on specific articles can be disruptive (or can be part of a cycle that leads to disruption.) My initial inclination is to let the ban stand; it's not a "black mark" against Benji, but rather a recognition that his presence on that article is causing more problems than it is worth. On the other hand, if another editor were to come to the article, and do the same sort of work Benji's been doing, Mr Sanchez' stream of OTRS requests would resume, with Benji crossed off and the new editor's name written in crayon. So this isn't about Benji, but about the material itself, which either belongs or does not belong in the article, regardless of Mr Sanchez' feelings. This means the only question for Benji is, "can you continue the edit the article while respecting our BLP, NPOV, V, etc requirements?" As far as OTRS is concerned, if Mr Sanchez' requests are valid, they should be respected; if not, they should be politely declined the first time, and ignored after that; he certainly doesn't get to dictate who edits the article about him. I can't imagine this is the first time someone has been persistent trying to get their way via OTRS; what's the usual way of dealing with repeat complainants? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Bluemarine was banned for one year by the Arbitration Committee as a result of the case.  Requesting that the Committee consider a very limited return to editing for the sole purpose of improving access to Wikipedia articles for people with disabilities.
Bluemarine (Matt Sanchez) is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons and has been contributing useful material.  Of particular interest is his voice recording work such as 
:Image:Weimar.ogg - a reading of part of the Weimar Republic article.  Recordings such as this one make Wikipedia more available to people who have vision impairments.  Mr. Sanchez has an excellent voice and the site could use more contributions of this sort.
Given his history, this is not something to consider lightly.  So I propose a very limited unblock for handicapped access purposes only, with myself as his mentor.  Mr. Sanchez would be permitted to place encyclopedic audio files at articles unrelated to his previous conflicts.  He may format audio file templates and caption those audio files and may edit his own user space.  That is all.  LGBT issues, broadly defined, would be off limits.
During the early part of Mr. Sanchez's siteban he did sock and was aggressive toward other editors he had been in conflict with.  So it's understandable if they have concerns or even outright opposition to this proposal.  I have instructed him to refrain from responding if any conflict resumes.  "Make it my problem," I told him.  He agreed.  When I found out he was socking earlier this year and asked him to stop, he pledged to.  There has been no problem in that regard since April 1.  So with a bit less than four months remaining on the clock for his ArbCom ban, I think this is a reasonable proposal.  Hoping others agree. DurovaCharge! 06:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the suggestion of an editor I'll make this clear: yes, Bluemarine would remain prohibited from his own biography article. DurovaCharge! 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To AniMate, preventing a resumption of old problems is a very high priority.  The problems occurred primarily at one article and over one topic.  Bluemarine will remain under a very tight restriction--unable to go to that article or anything like it, unable to edit in a normal sense, and unable to interact with other editors except at his own user talk.  If you see loopholes in that, please articulate what they are so I may modify this proposal and close them.  Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To the clerks, Bluemarine's computer got hacked during the arbitration case.  He's recovered his passwords and to the best of my knowledge there's been no further problem. DurovaCharge! 23:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Email control and identity confirmed. DurovaCharge! 03:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]]

message: I think most requests to lift bans on condition of strict mentorship should be approved on a trial basis.  At the first instance of trouble, the ban can be reinstated.  I recommend that any uninvolved administrator be allowed to reinstate the ban if necessary, and the editor should be resticted from going anywhere near the areas where they formerly caused disruption.  It is far better to have troubled users on the path to return under close supervision than have them sock puppeting or causing disruption through off site means. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Jehochman

message: I'm opposed to this motion. Bluemarine wasn't banned for his article contributions. He was banned for rampant incivilty and homophobic personal attacks. Looking through his contributions, there are a total of 9 edits to any talk pages at Wikimedia Commons, and those are from February. Unfortunately, Duova's request does nothing to address the concerns about his behavior.--AniMate 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by AniMate

message: I am strongly opposed to this motion. I was the only editor who provided diffs at the RFA which documented the harassment of Sanchez (and it was a rather extensive collection), so it's fair to say that I'm not opposing due to personal animus. (Discounting the personal attacks by Sanchez after I started blocking his socks after the ban went into effect.) However, I feel that he is not suited to working collaboratively, which is essential here. His contributions to commons are by their nature non-collaborative; they improve the project but do not require interaction with other editors. 
In addition to his attacks on LGBT editors and his harassment of other editors through sockpuppets, he has demonstrated poor judgement; after being unblocked to participate in the arbitration case, he made a beeline towards Waterboarding, which at the time was heading toward an an arbitration case of its own. This was after he had been explicitly instructed that the only pages he was to edit were his user pages and the arbitration case pages. He proved unable to comply with the guidelines then, and there is no indication that he will be able to do so now. I have had misgivings about dealing with the issue when the ban was set to expire; I really don't think we should move it forward. Horologium (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Horologium

message: Some of the particulars might be deduced by inspecting the checkuser and oversight logs.  I recall that the Bluemarine account made a post that made a number of inflammatory and possibly libelous comments about Matt Sanchez.  I ran a checkuser and found that those comments were posted from a very different IP than the one that had been previously used, and it was an IP that was linked to other harassment of Sanchez.  I think the comments themselves were later oversighted.  There were one or more individuals who hacked into Sanchez' email account (he talks about this on his blog) and he either used the same password for wikipedia or the hackers reset the password using the email feature.  I have no opinion on allowing Sanchez to contribute as such, but great care and diligence should be taken to ensure that the real and only Matt Sanchez has control of the account. Thatcher 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thatcher 

message: *According to Bluemarine's user talk, the account has been compromised - has this issue been resolved?--Tznkai (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Waiting for user:Thatcher's update and/or clarification. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Given Thatcher's statement (which describes something that I don't recall from the case), it might be useful to know if the Commons Bluemarine represents an SUL account that is unified with the en.wp account. I forget how to check that. Avruch  T   23:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And indeed, according to this, the account is unified (so if the en.wp account is compromised, so are they all). Avruch  T   23:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On hold pending additional confirmation of Bluemarine's identity.--Tznkai (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clerk notes

message: :Note: apologies in advance for the length here, this has been a bit painful so I'm attempting to proactively address concerns.
As indicated by Durova I had rather given up hope on this and since appeals were met with "what, again" feedback I felt it was best just to leave it until someone else felt it was time to revisit the issue. My hope is to clear this off my name, even if availble to admins to still see, as it has been the most stress I have faced here and seems only to serve to shame me in some way when I feel the ban could have been prevented in the first place. I appealed immediately and my inexperience in wikilawyering showed. Although there are exceptions I think Wikipedia:Banning policy should be similar structured to blocking policies in at least that dialog preceeds banning so an editor can look to adjusting thier approach and striking unhelpful comments, etc. Also giving editors, especially experienced editors, indefinite bans with little hope of removing them if the admin isn't open to the idea also seems out of step with the spirit of AGF. I was instead bundled with another editor who I often disagreed with who was certainly causing disruption there. As Durova states this was perhaps borderline, but IMHO, no ban was needed. I feel this is a bit of an exceptional case because the subject themselves had been the source of many problems and my ban was tied to their direct statements to get me and other "homosexual" (and much more colourful termed) editors away from it as is evident in the talkpage archives, the main case and, apparently, in OTRS communications. The article and talkpage were battlegrounds prior to my involvement and was tied to the very poor conduct of the subject of the article who seemed to feel volume outweighed policies. They may have been baited and trolled but even after that had been largely addressed the attacks from them continued. Prior to my ban I had worked to clean-up the talkpage and the article and much of my efforts are what you see there presently. Especially keeping the talkpage clear to discuss issues and resolve concerns. I felt the ban was unneeded and dialog would have negated the need for a ban, at least in my case. I do, and did, apologize for my part in how I conducted a sourcing dispute (YouTube videos that should have been properly attributed to the original source), poor use of blogs, and sarcastic comments, a sign of frustration but unhelpful none the less. I still feel BLP issues need to be discussed on talkpages and have been in many similar discussions; this is not activism (of which I was accused) but follwing reliable sourcing and BLP policies. Given an instant replay I would have taken Durova's advice and looked to clarification at RSN board on how to handle the subject's own statements regarding their sexuality and sexual practices. I would have also worked to clean-up the sourcing issues which didn't need deleting but certainly weren't helped by simply reverting either. Many editors felt discussion was being suppressed because the subject of the article was complaining vigorously about ... well, everything. After the subject's community and arbcom bans they apparently barraged OTRS with complaints including specifically naming me as I was among the few remaining editors on the talkpage who openly disagreed with some, but not all, of their many wishes and concerns. Frankly, it seemed like the decision to uphold the ban against me was along the lines of "we'll give the subject this one but that's it". I've worked on many articles including BLPs since this unfortunate period and certainly would not take the same approach. I'm unconvinced that anyone needs to monitor my involvement there as I intend to avoid the subject and the article is well watched and also remains under arb enforcement. I also have real life concerns for my safety so am unlikely to be involved there at all. If ameniable I would also like to have my involvement on the arb case oversighted or otherwise masked so I am of less interest to anyone there. I do however do wikignoming bits on a volume of articles as well as trouble-shooting on LGBT-related articles so also don't want to be pilorized for even touching the article.  -- Banjeboi 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to Risker: Thank you for your kind words. To address "sexual orientation is rarely the reason for notability of BLP subjects, and should be accorded only due weight" I tend to fully agree with you. In the case of this BLP subject there was heavy dispute that their notability was directly tied to their sexuality and sexual activities. My efforts were to resolve that to end the circular arguing, that there was acrimony and socking, personal attacks etc only made the situation more of a battleground. In hindsight I'm glad I pushed for the discussion to take place however I would have worked more on the sourcing angles in light of due weight issues.  -- Banjeboi 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Response to Cool Hand Luke: There are two main reasons for lifting this besides the personal angst to myself, by most accounts a productive Wikipedian. It could have been avoided in the first place with civil dialog and it was made permanent by an admin who apparently prides themself on using a hammer and perhaps sees editors in more stark contrasting terms when people can and do change. I'm glad I was involved there as I learned a lot up to and including my page-ban and my unfortaunate introduction to Arbcom. This has also enforced my belief that we get better editors by civilly discussing issues and helping them do the same. This has coloured my exprerience to be much more compassionate when editors fly off the track for whatever reasons. Our goal should be to help them amend and improve not shame and punish. If I'm asked to help there again I'm more likely to offer drafts and let others decide what is worth using, I have some real life issues about my association with this.  -- Banjeboi 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Benjiboi 

message: * Durova: I have no problems with lifting the sanction if you'll take responsibility for keeping an eye on the article and notifying us if Benjiboi starts violating BLP again. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to Durova: The links you provided demonstrate that Benjiboi himself last initiated a request that the ban be lifted in April 2008, just about a month after it was imposed. The other two requests (to the Committee and to Jimbo) were initiated by another editor, in September 2008. The Committee's door is open for him to make the request himself, or to propose alternative terms or probationary status; however, I fully expect an editor who wants an amendment to an action taken on behalf of this Committee to clearly articulate for him or herself exactly why that amendment should be made. Support (and concerns) from other editors is of course welcome. I understand that you have reasons not to wish to monitor the situation personally; however, with no alternative proposed, I cannot see this going forward. Risker (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to Benjiboi: Thank you for coming to the table. I have, incidental to any matters before the Committee, had the opportunity to observe your work in the project, and more particularly your development as an editor, and your increased understanding of the importance of nuance in editing BLPs in particular; however, I'd urge you to reflect on the fact that sexual orientation is rarely the reason for notability of BLP subjects, and should be accorded only due weight, similar to the passing mention of significant others in the articles of "straight" subjects. Given your changes in practice over the ensuing year-plus, and your intention to avoid this particular article, I am willing to lift the topic ban. I do, however, expect you to take advantage of the many resources available to you when proposing to include non-standard reference sources.  Risker (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Motion initiated.  Risker (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* (initiator)
* (notification)
*, mentor of Bluemarine (notification)
=== Statement by Sandstein ===
In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, on 1 February 2008, the Committee decided upon the following remedy: "Bluemarine is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban."
On 10 December 2008, the Committee passed the following amendment to that case (permalink):
:"Limited unblock with conditions:This committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of  are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of . Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.
:Passed 7 to 0, 09:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect extended toward Newyorkbrad's comment, the basic structure of a new editing restriction is something the community should be able to handle quite well.  In about May I made such a proposal (basically a topic ban from his old areas of conflict).  There was a socking concern that got raised, which turned out to be a nonissue, but investigation delayed discussion so the proposal didn't achieve consensus (mainly because the noticeboard was fast-moving).  Shortly afterward Bluemarine went away on business and has had limited Internet access since then.  That's the only reason a second proposal hasn't already gone to the community. Durova285 01:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although nobody formally closed the discussion, it appears the community has decided upon a topic ban. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Matt_Sanchez Durova293 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *I take note of the current discussion here, where it appears that an administrator has advised Bluemarine that his community ban is lifted (with restrictions), but Bluemarine was subsequently reblocked for personal attacks as mentioned above. While I do not object to the community deciding to lift the ban, I remain concerned about this user, and hope that his behaviour is carefully monitored by several editors/administrators, particularly in view of the activities of recent days.  Risker (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: Bluemarine 

message: In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, on 1 February 2008, the Committee decided upon the following remedy: "Bluemarine is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban."
On 10 December 2008, the Committee passed the following amendment to that case (permalink):
:"Limited unblock with conditions:This committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of  are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of . Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.
:Passed 7 to 0, 09:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Sandstein 

message: I'd just like to clarify that Matt Sanchez, aka User:Bluemarine, was under a community ban before his Arbcom ban. His 1-year Arbcom ban did expire in February of this year, which would have been before the 60-day stipulation to end. 60-days would have put him under Arbcom ban until March when the initial 1-year ban expired in February. So technically, there is nothing Arbcom can, or needs to, rule on here as Arbcom's jurisdiction ended in February by the original Arbcom ban or in March by the Arbcom 60-day stipulation - depending on how you interpret the Arbcom ban. What is left to do is for the community to decide whether or not to lift his community ban, which again, he was placed under before his Arbcom ban.
This is all brought about because he made 6 edits yesterday while still under community ban, after having been informed he was still under the community ban back in May when he made edits. In May he was told by Durova not to edit anywhere but his talk page until the matter was resolved. Unfortunately, it went stale and was never resolved then but as he wasn't informed that it was resolved, he should have asked on his talk page what the status was.
As I have agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, I support the lifting of his community ban with the stipulations that he is banned from editing his related BLP article or article talk page as well as the same for the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article. In addition, as also agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, based on Sanchez's history of vile personal attacks towards other editors, should he lodge any personal attacks, he shall be immediately and indefinitely blocked again. -  ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here  07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Allstarecho 

message: Just a slight correction -- at this point I have no idea what the status of ArbCom's restricted unblocking is. It's not clear from the language whether the committee intended it to outlive the committee's original sanctions. A reasonable person could interpret it either way. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Jpgordon 

message: Recommend remanding this to the community.  Bluemarine's arbitration ban has expired.  The community could clarify his status and/or impose new restrictions on its own. Durova284 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect extended toward Newyorkbrad's comment, the basic structure of a new editing restriction is something the community should be able to handle quite well.  In about May I made such a proposal (basically a topic ban from his old areas of conflict).  There was a socking concern that got raised, which turned out to be a nonissue, but investigation delayed discussion so the proposal didn't achieve consensus (mainly because the noticeboard was fast-moving).  Shortly afterward Bluemarine went away on business and has had limited Internet access since then.  That's the only reason a second proposal hasn't already gone to the community. Durova285 01:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although nobody formally closed the discussion, it appears the community has decided upon a topic ban. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Matt_Sanchez Durova293 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Durova 

message: This user is not worth the trouble, in my view. Their past history is filled with disputes with all and sundry. The word "collegial" is not, in my view, in their vocabulary. Recommend putting or keeping a complete ban in place. Else we'll be here again soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 09:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statment by Lar 

message: I was drafting arbitrator on the original case. I also voted to support the amending motion in December, and remember thinking when doing so that it would be good to progressively lift Bluemarine's editing ban in the period leading up to the end of the year ban when he would be free to edit. Obviously any community sanction is administered separately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Sam Blacketer 

message: I suggest that Bluemarine be unbanned along with a stipulation that on the Matt Sanchez article and maybe a few other closely related articles he limit his contributions to the talk pages (per standard COI type concerns). I also think a mentor would be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by ChildofMidnight

message: I sugges that the ArbCom give some statement on this editor's status, at least on an interim basis, while a final decision is made. At the moment no one is sure what his status is.    Will Beback  talk   01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Will Beback 

message: Looking at the history of this, it would appear that this user has exhausted the community's patience.  Clearly an agenda-driven editor whose goals here appear to be completely contrary to a collaborative editing project, at least in politically-oriented articles.  Short of an outright ban, a topic ban would be the only other option. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Tarc 

message: I was not aware of this arbcom issue, nor am I involved in anyway, but it should probably be noted that I have just blocked bluemarine for 72 hours for this personal attack, --Jac16888Talk 13:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by other Jac16888

message: *My view is that we should cut to the chase, and decide what editing restrictions, if any are needed for the editor. Once that is enacted, then the past sanctions do not matter. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I take note of the current discussion here, where it appears that an administrator has advised Bluemarine that his community ban is lifted (with restrictions), but Bluemarine was subsequently reblocked for personal attacks as mentioned above. While I do not object to the community deciding to lift the ban, I remain concerned about this user, and hope that his behaviour is carefully monitored by several editors/administrators, particularly in view of the activities of recent days.  Risker (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion