Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, this format doesn't make it much easier to navigate the proposals. --Coredesat 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Its being tried out at the request of the Arbitrators. There's some relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#Change to workshop page structure. WjBscribe 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: proposals by user xyz 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unblock request by Bluemarine 

message: Please review Bluemarine's contributions, he again edited pages outside of this case after being unblocked. Lawrence Cohen 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -- ALLSTARecho 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Block unblock block 

message: 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. DurovaCharge! 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ALLSTARecho 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 04:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The gordian knot

message: 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:
* 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?)
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This would not help.  It would harm the project. Wjhonson (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SPAs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Coredesat 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually the recent Wikipedia: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. DurovaCharge! 06:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please read this series of exchanges between Elonka and BlueMarineWjhonson (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did that come from?!Reelm (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hacking, bank fraud stuff/allegations 

message: 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. DurovaCharge! 07:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? DurovaCharge! 10:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have no opinion on that, it's for the committee to decide.Wjhonson (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Or the emails could be real, and sent by Sanchez or one of his cronies.Reelm (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's developments