Revision as of 03:04, 19 September 2007 editWjhonson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits →Outside view by JetLover← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:09, 19 September 2007 edit undoWjhonson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits →Involved view by HorologiumNext edit → | ||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
* ] 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC). This sums up most concerns of mine with an exception that there is some justifiable paranoia on Sanchez's part that may account for him seeing the entire situation as a "me verses the wikiverse" which may also be compounded by his military experiences. Thus even well-meaning editors are clumped together as part of the adversarial camp and driven away. | * ] 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC). This sums up most concerns of mine with an exception that there is some justifiable paranoia on Sanchez's part that may account for him seeing the entire situation as a "me verses the wikiverse" which may also be compounded by his military experiences. Thus even well-meaning editors are clumped together as part of the adversarial camp and driven away. | ||
* ] 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | * ] 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
* ] 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I have a potential COI on this matter, as I've writen my own journalistic version of Matt Sanchez for my own . Be that as it may, if Matt's behaviour is continuing than it appears he has no appreciation for process here and a block on the order of at least a week would be in order. ] 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== |
Revision as of 03:09, 19 September 2007
In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC).
- Bluemarine (talk · contribs · logs)
Repeated violations of WP:AUTO, WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:NPOV.
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the Dispute:
Bluemarine is a screen name used by Matt Sanchez. He has a history of vicious, personal attacks against other editors, and of editing his own biographical page on the encyclopedia, in violation of WP:AUTO. As evidenced by his talk page, he has been threatened with banning several times, but no action has ever been taken.
Desired Outcome:
1. Given his repeated flouting of Misplaced Pages policies and personal attacks on other users, despite repeated warnings, Bluemarine should be stripped of editing privileges on the article in question.
2. If the admission of prostitution is not included, and Bluemarine is allowed to continue to use this page primarily as a vanity article about himself, then this article should be deleted as it doesn't meet notability guidelines.
Description
Blumarine, aka Matt Sanchez, was eventually exposed as a sockpuppet making autobiographical edits to his own biography page. Since that time he has been doing a very good job at smokescreening - creating non-issues for argument and making people angry and nitpicking and diluting the debate about what really matters: Is the information notable? Why is there an article about him in the first place? It is not a fan page, he does not have ownership over the article, and he cannot dictate every bit of information that goes in it. He has admitted to being a prostitute in the past. This, along with his past as a gay porn actor, and his current attempts as a political commentator, are the sole reason there is an article about him at Misplaced Pages in the first place.Typing monkey 08:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Evidence
Repeated Warnings / Violations of WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:SOCK, WP:OWN
User_talk:Bluemarine#Editing_an_article_about_yourself
User_talk:Bluemarine#Please_read_this_warning.2C_or_you_may_be_blocked_from_editing_Wikipedia
User_talk:Bluemarine#Sockpuppetry_case
User_talk:Bluemarine#Violations_of_policy
User_talk:Bluemarine#Your_talk_page
User_talk:Bluemarine#Conflict_of_interest
Repeated Violations of WP:CIV
User_talk:Bluemarine#Name-Calling
User_talk:Bluemarine#Personal_attacks
User_talk:Bluemarine#Tone.2C_avoiding_personal_attacks
User_talk:Bluemarine#Please_stop_personal_attacks
User_talk:Bluemarine#More_personal_attacks
Violations of WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV
Violations of WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV despite numerous warnings (see examples above). All of these have taken place in the last few days (most on September 16).
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
- Aatombomb 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka 19:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (note: I am certifying that there is a dispute, though I do not agree with the requested outcome)
- Benjiboi 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Horologium t-c 21:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (note: as Elonka, I recognize there is a dispute, but do not support the requested outcome.)
- Typing monkey 21:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- User: Ryoung122 I do not support article deletion. However, I do support the need for a balanced article. User BlueMarine has edited out parts he doesn't want people to know about and has attempted to turn the article into a vanity piece. Thus the article as currently written fails objectively to meet a NPOV standard.Ryoung122 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wjhonson 03:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I certify that there is a problem as stated in the header. Although items might be pejorative, we do not as course allow people to remove negative, well-cited material about themselves.
Other users who endorse this summary
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view by JetLover
Looking at Marine's disruptive behavior, I can say that it has gone on for too long. Personally, I think he has been told to stop too any times, I think a long block should be in store for him. He should be punnished for his behavior. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary
- Aatombomb 19:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- User:Ryoung122 Unless/until BlueMarine shows a willingness to abide by the rules, he should be blocked from further editing. Calling people 'Nazis' and the 'gay mafia' is flatly unacceptable.Ryoung122 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Typing monkey 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- JMarkievicz2 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wjhonson 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I'd like to add that at least twice he has accused me of sending him private, sexual, emails. Which of course I've never done. His basic retort against anyone with a contrary view is to make personal attacks, whatever he thinks will stick. Wjhonson 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Involved View by JMarkievicz2
I agree with what’s been said so far, but would like to stress that WP:COI is the biggest problem with Matt Sanchez. And it's not limited to his own WP bio. He's made self-serving edits to other WP articles as well. According to Sanchez he is “being paid as a journalist and rather well” by such rightwing publications as The Weekly Standard and The National Review. Most of his edits seem tailored to drive traffic to his blog or other web sites that publish him or to give a boost to his new career as a rightwing commentator. His contributions to the WP article on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Controversy are especially problematic because Sanchez was the primary source for most of the contentious, negative information on Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a man who is not a notable public figure. This, of course, also raises issues related to WP:BLP and WP:SPS. JMarkievicz2 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- Aatombomb 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Typing monkey 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ryoung122 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Eleemosynary 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Involved view by Cholga
Ban - his presence is not useful and detracts from the page, personal attacks if serious are unacceptable i only support clever personal attacks if humorous and would only offend the very sensative PC-pusher type but would hardly muster an evil eye out of 95% of people. He should be blocked for a few months, then permanently.Cholga 04:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Involved view by Benjiboi
(note: I've edited (w/strikeouts)for clarity now that I have an idea what this process is.)
This is my first RfC so apologies for messing up where and how to comment. Please feel free to move into a section of statements from involved editors but I'll have to get back on a vote of any sort once I've had time to digest it all. I've found Matt/Blue Marines/his anon IP edit's more than disruptive and they were at least disparaging towards me personally and others in general. and I went beyond the call of duty to civilly ask him to cool it down and suggest he focus on other articles that interested him if he wasn't able to chill a bit. I think that (which) lasted a day until the next round of comments on every statement and item he didn't agree with on his wp page. I admire him for his tenacity but also want him to know the article would be so so SO much better if he'd ease off altogether and let some of the more experienced folks do an overhaul. I had done several hours of research and simply shelved everything after he personally went after me. He does seem to understand some rules or at least knows which ones to break or something as when he was given ultimate warning about personal attacks those stopped (I think, I gave up on his article). Not sure when this RfC expires but to answer just the summary and outcomes at the top of page I would not support his being banned as he does have potential and can provide good edits just doesn't seem to be playing nice and needs a bit of experience (probably on articles that aren't in the middle of culture wars). I would support him being given a short-term ban of some sort but to me he needs to be encouraged to do better editing rather than roadblocking other edits or pushing POV. I think we all do do that to our own biases but his seem blatant and take up energy and time when accompanied with endless conversational loops on talk page. I certainly don't think deleting his Matt Sanchez article is appropriate as obviously it's important enough to have it in the first place. If he does get banned please let me know and I can take a look at his article again and quickly get some edits in before he returns. Benjiboi 18:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view by Into The Fray
This user is alleged to be in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:NPOV as stated by this RfC. Where is the support for WP:SOCK? I think it valid to reference , the sock puppetry case that was opened on him and closed as inconclusive. A large portion of the warnings provided are from far earlier this year and don't really appear to pertain to current behavior. In terms of WP:CIV / WP:NPA, I found (thanks to WJScribe) these diffs: , and , which are both from June. Also, it would be much more helpful if the evidence was provided in diffs as opposed to straight links to his talk page. I also don't know that short, perfunctory or template warnings are enough to describe editors attempting to resolve the disputes. Further, I found at least some uncivil commentary from others involved (also, if memory serves, old comments). With all due respect to the nominators of this RfC, it could be much better formatted and supported by evidence. Regardless of that, it's clear by simply looking at the history of Matt Sanchez as well as the talk page that this editor has clear WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV and (perhaps) WP:OWN issues. Further evidence notwithstanding, my strong recommendation would be that he be admonished to stop editing his article ( I don't think he can be "stripped" of his ability to edit any one article, but I might be wrong) and to seek a respected, neutral third party to act as his proxy for any sourced edits that he wants to make or thinks need to be made. And, in the likely event that he continues to edit his own page regardless of this RfC, he should be blocked for a month. Into The Fray /C 20:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- Yksin 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC). I may comment myself later, but based on what I've read so far on the Matt Sanchez article, talk page, & various user talk pages, this view comes closest to my own reading of the situation.
- Horologium t-c 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC) See also my contribution below.
Discussion of this comment has been moved to this page's talk page, per standard RfC format.
Involved view by Horologium
(There is a lot of overlap between User:Bluemarine and Matt Sanchez, the wikipedia article, so many of my statements pertain to the article, which is the crux of the dispute. They really cannot be separated. My apologies if this is a problem.)
This article has been the target of PoV pushers on both sides of the equation for quite some time now, and an endless parade of partisan single-purpose accounts has been sniping at Sanchez on this article for months. Several of the disputes revolve around contradictory statements given by Sanchez on "Hannity and Colmes" regarding allegations that Sanchez worked as an escort, his role in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, and his current career as an embedded journalist in Iraq. Other issues have included Sanchez's ethnicity, the categories into which this article should be added, the reliability of sources used in the article (the worst of them have been excised, although Sanchez has expended a considerable amount of effort to discredit a portion of the Salon article that he claims was not what he originally wrote), the Marine Corps investigation into his contact with prospective financial backers, the photograph in the infobox, Sanchez's efforts to include every single published article he has written, and a desire by certain editors to include an exhaustive list of all of the films in which Sanchez appeared, in contravention to the policy established at WikiProject Pornography for porn star bios.
Until a few days ago, Sanchez had refrained from editing the article itself since early June, although he has peppered the talk page with endless complaints about specific aspects of the article, often groundless or contradictory, although occasionally reasonable or justifiable. I don't know what prompted the current spate of edits he made (many of which have been reverted by other users), but they were inappropriate for him to make.
In regards to civility, again, there have been problems by editors on both sides; some of the most offensive comments towards Sanchez were made by a now permanently blocked PoV warrior, which understandably upset him, but Sanchez's blanket denunciations of editors based on their sexual orientation is simply unacceptable as well. There are straight editors and gay editors on either side of the support/oppose Sanchez continuum, and frankly the editor's orientation is totally irrelevant to the issue.
The section at the end of the article, which discusses Sanchez's current activities, is somewhat problematic. Much of his writing is produced for partisan outlets such as The Weekly Standard, www.rightwingnews.com and other conservative organizations, which in some cases do not qualify as notable or reliable. However, if the article is presented as a bio (as it is in its current form), it is not appropriate to eliminate those activities. Limiting the article simply to his porn career and the CPAC conference brings up questions of undue weight and BLP concerns.
At this point, I would support a temporary block on Sanchez for a cooldown period; in any case, he needs to be reminded (forcefully) that editing a mainspace article on oneself is not appropriate. A lack of response to a proposal on the talk page does not give an editor carte blanche to edit an article of which he is the subject.
Horologium t-c 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Users who support this summary:
- Yksin 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC). This also matches what I've seen on the article & talk page. Excellent summation.
- Into The Fray /C 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC). Very well said.
- Typing monkey 00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC) True and an excellent overview.
- Benjiboi 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC). This sums up most concerns of mine with an exception that there is some justifiable paranoia on Sanchez's part that may account for him seeing the entire situation as a "me verses the wikiverse" which may also be compounded by his military experiences. Thus even well-meaning editors are clumped together as part of the adversarial camp and driven away.
- Aatombomb 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wjhonson 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I have a potential COI on this matter, as I've writen my own journalistic version of Matt Sanchez for my own Wiki here. Be that as it may, if Matt's behaviour is continuing than it appears he has no appreciation for process here and a block on the order of at least a week would be in order. Wjhonson 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.