Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:45, 12 January 2008

Archives

1, 2

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to allow you to participate in the arbitration case, I have unblocked this account. Please refrain from editing any other pages at this time, otherwise I will block this account again, irrespective of whether the edits are constructive or disruptive.

If you have any queries about arbcom procedures or how to participate in the case effectively, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or email me if you feel that is necessary. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the pages which you are allowed to edit are:

• Bluemarine (talk)
• User talk:Jayvdb
• Arbcom case pages excluding the Proposed decision page which is restricted to the committee members and clerks.

If you edit any other page, for any reason or in any manner, this account will be reblocked. Also, you should remain civil and avoid unnecessary drama; disruptive behavior on these pages may result in the account being reblocked. (see Don't moon the jury). John Vandenberg (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have blocked your account. The parameters of the unblock were clear, and you violated them. Not only that, but you havent used the unblock to participate in the case.

As a result, you are now being restrained and gagged so to speak. You may only participate in the case by writing notes on your own talk page, indicating where you would like it placed on the arbcom pages.

Please be clear, so as to not waste my time. (see Don't moon the jury). John Vandenberg (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy offer

Due to the seriousness of the issues involved in your ArbCom case, I would like to offer to advise and assist you (informally) on the conduct of the case and (where appropriate) to make representations to the Arbitrators on your behalf. We don't have lawyers on Misplaced Pages, so I will not necessarily be fighting your corner against all accusations, but I do think that you are entitled to fair advice and representation, in order to ensure that the outcome of the case is as fair as possible; as an experienced Misplaced Pages user, I believe I am qualified. If you choose to accept my help, you can reply here (since the Committee has told you not to edit other pages) and we can discuss your present position. Walton 16:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another form of totalitarianism

By the thought police. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My offer to help still stands. Since you can no longer edit the ArbCom pages, I can place notes and responses there on your behalf if you wish. Do you want my help or not? Walton 09:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Walton: You can post my reply at the ARbcom.21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Bluemarine was specifically instructed not to edit any page but those listed above by User:Jayvdb. You broke the term, you deal with the consequences.
• Regarding your offer to help, Walton One, he can reply to everything on his talk page (as standard ArbCom policy dictates). You could, of course, copy his responses to the appropriate pages, provided that you do a link-back to Bluemarine's original statement. - Penwhale | 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't you guys talk somewhere else, or are you claiming I don't have authority over this talk page either?

• As an arbitration clerk, I'm here to let you know that even though you are blocked, you can still reply and someone will post your response onto the appropriate pages. Other than that, I'm not suggesting anything. - Penwhale | 09:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual Agenda

There's plenty of proof that homosexual activists see:Homosexual agenda are interested in creating a biased article against me. Much of the criticism and edits to the article attempt to emphasize gay sex in a virtual version of fag bashing. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this part of your statement to Arbcom? If so, I suggest that you draft it a little more. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock parameters

You were unblocked to only participate in the arbcom case. Your block now expires 21:44, 12 January 2008. When it ends, do not edit outside the arbcom case. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction, when the block expires, you can edit outside arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please post statement in Arbcom

I was reading that a late night comedian asked members of his audience to make entries at Misplaced Pages and the consequences of that request was that quite a few items were vandalized, because the newbie editors had a different goal in mind rather than trying to contribute to World's 💕.

A similar call has gone out over the article on me and the result has been just as predictable, persons with ulterior motives are attempting to make a "point" and establish some sort of "authority".

There are several in factual inaccuracies in the article as it stands. I did not star "in over 20 videos" as currently stated without considering scenes that are re-used, but the fact that the number 20 is a point of debate and that there are entrenched camps who insist on it, reveals a disturbing trend among many of the editors contributing to this article.

As someone who makes a living by what I write, I repeat that I stand behind what I write, even if some may find my words offensive. The issue is probably less of what I say and more about how the reader interprets it. Nevertheless, I stand behind and support what I have written. I'm a real person whose information is justly or misrepresented in this article.

Unlike those late night groupies following the commands of an activist comedian, Misplaced Pages should strive to live up to the claim of an unbiased encyclopedic endeavor. It's great that many of the distorted articles were restored and I hope the latest attempts at vandalism show the need to maintain a higher standard. Matt Sanchez Matt Sanchez (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to unblock

{{unblock|I am requesting that I be unblocked, so that I can participate in the ArbCom case. I am confused why I was blocked for participating at other articles. It was my understanding that it was a good thing for editors to work on more than one article, and I was not attempting to be disruptive. If it's necessary for me to avoid working on any other articles though, I will abide by that restriction.}}

I would support an unblock. I have worked with Sanchez in the past, and I do agree that he has at times been confused by Misplaced Pages procedures. We (more experienced Wikipedians) often take for granted that we understand acronyms and warnings and "wiki-jargon". But what we sometimes forget, is that just because a warning was posted on a talkpage, doesn't necessarily mean that that user understood (or even read) the warning. If Sanchez has promised above though that he will avoid working on other articles, then I am prepared to take him at his word, and think that we should give him the benefit of the doubt. --Elonka 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Elonka, it says at the top of this very page where he was notified by User:Jayvdb that he, Jayvdb, was unblocking him and was told by Jayvdb: Please refrain from editing any other pages at this time, otherwise I will block this account again, irrespective of whether the edits are constructive or disruptive. Just to clarify, the pages which you are allowed to edit are: Bluemarine (talk), User talk:Jayvdb, Arbcom case pages excluding the Proposed decision page which is restricted to the committee members and clerks. If you edit any other page, for any reason or in any manner, this account will be reblocked. His claim to have been confused why he was blocked for participating at other articles is 100% unbelievable. -- ALLSTARecho 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• conditional support I wouldn't personally object to this, provided that Matt also promised to refrain from making any further attacks or condemnations on any minorities (which happened during his brief unblock stint). Such things are 100% unacceptable on Misplaced Pages, ever, under any circumstances, no matter what. Would you agree to that, Matt? Lawrence Cohen 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

could you be more specific about the "minority" you're talking about? We have a different understanding of terms here.Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• In addition to the notices above, I emailed Bluemarine:

 On Jan 7, 2008 11:17 PM, Jayvdb wrote:
    Hi,
    An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and in order to allow you to participate, I have unblocked 
    the "Bluemarine" account.
    Please refrain from editing any other pages at this time, otherwise I will block this account again, 
    irrespective of whether the edits are constructive or disruptive.
    If you have any queries about arbcom procedures or how to participate in the case effectively, feel free 
    to ask me on via email or my talk page.
    Regards,
    John Vandenberg

Matt replied via email: Ok, John, I'll be submitting a comment shortly. I don't believe there was any misunderstanding about the parameters of the unblock, so the block was procedural. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): As Matt has now taken the time to prepare a statement, and has written in his own words that he will refrain from editing other articles, I have lifted the block. Matt, please keep to your word. Also, terms like "late night groupies" are cute, but your audience here is not popular media - we are not here to be entertained by wit. Most of us are busy people, so brevity is preferable. You have been unblocked to provide a statement, evidence, and be involved in the workshop - in all of these activities, you should avoid grandstanding. Request handled by: John Vandenberg (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you've already broken your unblock promise by editing Talk:Matt Sanchez. Once more and you'll be reblocked, which means you won't be able to contribute to the arbitration pages directly. Seriously, stop it now. This is your absolute final warning on your absolute final chance (having been unblocked twice already). There'll be no more excuses or assuming that it was an accident. Daniel (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick note about the arbitration case

You might want to copy your statements over to the Evidence subpage, as once a case has been opened, arbitrators generally don't expect the statement on the main page to change. (In other words, the main case page is your pre-arbitration statement, and the Evidence page is where you would make your point once a case is accepted.) - Penwhale | 08:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another block??

what happened this time? This is just childish. I haven't "edited" anything. I've COMMENTED on a talkpage. Is that the same thing?

• Technically, yes. See my response in the section below. - Penwhale | 13:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Bluemarine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked for commenting when I was told not to edit. Are these one and the same?

Decline reason:

You aren't blocked according to your log. Does it say you are autoblocked? — John Reaves 12:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I also looked at the block log and couldn't find anything. That said, he should be blocked for violating the terms of his unblock again. Any reasonable person, reading the terms of the unblock, would know that they are only allowed to edit the arbcom case. Even commenting on the article talk page, as he did immediately after the unblock, is editing, in the sense that he is trying to influence the editing of the actual article. Jeffpw (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked and can't find anything in the block log or autoblock. That being said, Bluemarine, when we meant by "editing" it includes all commenting on talk pages, as well. Basically, you are asked to not touch/comment on any page that isn't in your userspace (your user page, talk page, and subpages that you might have) or the arbitration case pages. - Penwhale | 13:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well "basically" that's not what you wrote or what anyone even implied and when you say "when (sic) we meant by editing..." who is the we? Since when is "commenting editing? Who makes up these rules? For the most part, Wiki is painstakingly accurate, so how can anyone confuse editing with commenting? The commentator above claims that "influencing" is tantamount to editing? That argument just doesn't stand up. Who is the one imposing these rules, is this a standard or are they adjusted? I'm very confused and frankly disappointed with the kindergarten/nanny tactics. I am really trying to make an effort to take this seriously, but when someone willy nilly decides to make a powerplay and impose their will it makes participation seem like a huge waste of time and courtesy a technique in torture. Matt Sanchez (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as far as editing and commenting, the way the site works, historically, anytime you hit the save page button, on anything, for any purpose. Be it a comment, or an edit to an article, or whatever, it is considered an "edit". The rules as far as blocking and unblocking are here. The standard practice to unblock someone for the purpose of arbitration is a meeting in the middle. "Ok, I will unblock you, if you do not edit anything but your userspace, and the arbcom case pages" as I understand, this is what happened. Let me know if you have anymore questions, I'll try to clarify. Regards, M-ercury at 14:08, January 10, 2008

Just from the outside looking in, the edit to Talk:Matt... looked like it should have gone on a case page somewhere, so there could have been a misunderstanding about how all this works, that just my 2 pence. M-ercury at 13:52, January 10, 2008

According to the people above, a comment is editing. Who knew?Matt Sanchez (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You should have. You've been editing here for 10 months now. This looks like wikilawyering to me. But perhaps we should change the wording to coincide with the Simple Misplaced Pages, where they call it "changing a page". Much less ambiguous, for readers who can't grasp complex English. Jeffpw (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffpw, can I please ask you to review WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL?. Sanchez is obviously having trouble navigating the Misplaced Pages "judicial process". He's having trouble telling editors apart, and he's unclear on the difference between article-space and Misplaced Pages-space and Talk-space. These are sources of legitimate confusion. Just because we all know where and what ArbCom is, doesn't mean that he does. Further, when one editor is rude to Sanchez, it makes it look like everyone on Misplaced Pages is being rude to Sanchez, which just makes the entire situation even worse. Please can we try to adopt a demeanor of helping Sanchez, instead of kicking him? --Elonka 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

unblock

Bluemarine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No reason given. Looks like people think you should be blocked anyway. — John Reaves 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bluemarine, you do not appear to be blocked, but try editing the sandbox. If you can, you aren't blocked. If you are unable to edit the sandbox, copy/paste the block message regarding autoblocks. - auburnpilot talk 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I located an autoblock that may still have been affecting Bluemarine from an earlier block and lifted it. Hopefully that will solve the problem. WjBscribe 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What you can edit confusion

Matt, during the arbitration, the process everyone is talking about means that because of the block you can only edit the following pages:

• Your own talk page (this one)

And only these, beside that:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine/Proposed_decision

Please also refrain from making any derogatory comments toward any minorities or groups. If you edit any other pages, any admin can re-block you. Lawrence Cohen 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since, the majority of editors are homosexuals does that mean I can make derogatory comments about them? Isn't there an implicit bias here? The article, in part, deals with homosexuality and pornography and yet there are many editing who are offended by pornography. Cohen, do you just make these rules up as you go along? Matt Sanchez (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify something for you and any other interested parties. Your last valid block before the Arbitration case was filed (02:44, 6 January 2008 by WJBscribe) was for one week. So, regardless of the restrictions placed on your temporary unblocking, after 02:44, 13 January, you will be "unblocked" and free to edit any article. Of course, you will be subject to reblocking for making legal threats or strong personal attacks against other editors, regardless of the status of the Arbitration case. (You can comment by email or on your own talk page and it will be copied to the case, if you are blocked again.) Thatcher 20:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt, it was also pointed out to me that you can also edit your own User page, at User:Bluemarine, and any sub pages under that until your block expires, per an arbitration clerk. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note specifically that you cannot edit Talk:Matt Sanchez, despite it being a talk page about the article on you. Your series of edits there is what has a bunch of editors angry; they were reverted by the arbitration clerk overseeing the case. Horologium (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he means "reversed", not "revered". :-) - Philippe | Talk 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "reverted", which is pretty much the same thing. ;P I fixed that error. Horologium (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocks and Nannyism

This process has reached a level or ridiculousness that it has been truly difficult to take anyone here seriously.

• There are any number of anonymous and new editors who are approaching me with conflicting information
• I've just been informed that I'm supposed to treat "minority groups" with a different standard than what I would any normal person.
• There's a myriad of definitions for concepts like "editing" and "commenting".

This is truly the weakness of the Misplaced Pages structure. You seem to be enamored with the idea of a collective endeavor but this refuses to allow for any type of diverse thought that conflicts with a rigid shifting dogma. The result is an admin class all too eager to stamp out dissent of any sort, which has the unfortunate side-effect of disregarding whatever thoughts and notions that don't fit into these rigid and subjective guidelines.

Case in point: The political allegiances of the editors are important. The LGBT agenda homosexual agenda is a political allegiance/ideology, and yet that simple concept is disregarded as aberrational and even bringing it up is some kind of a violation.

I'm grateful for the glimpse into the Wiki structure, it is astounding to witness so many intelligent individuals become flubbed by the practice of free speech. The reaction has not only been punitive and restrictive toward my person, but it has also revealed how thuggish, self-righteous and over-bearing so many of the people on this board have become.

This has been a wonderful cautionary tale of what could happen should this mindset leak from this virtual setting to the real world. Matt Sanchez (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you were blocked for continued personal attacks, incivility, and disruption. You have been unblocked because Wikipedians have as a group decided that the editing of Matt Sanchez has been problematic, and our Arbitration Committee has decided to look into this in order to improve the way the project is run, and they would like you to be involved. As a result, your block was lifted for the sole reason of allowing you to edit the case pages; when you edited other pages, everyone got a bit frustrated that you are not staying within the boundaries set out.

Please note that Misplaced Pages does not pretend to be a Free speech zone. Misplaced Pages's primary purpose is to build an encyclopedia, and in order for that to occur, a rather rigid framework for how editors will behave has been established over time. We do get our knickers in a knot when any user makes derogatory comments about any other user, and Lawrence Cohen has tried to underscore this for you. (He is not making these rules up as he goes.) Etiquette guidelines were first collated in February 2002, and the policy of "No personal attacks" was written in April 2002.

To give you a worked example and some food for thought, here is a short reply to your statement: The political allegiances of the editors are important, ... bringing it up is some kind of a violation. There are a lot of factors about editors that are very important, and often users will record some of these factors on their own user page, to communicate them to other users. However, all discussion should be solely focused on the content of the encyclopedia. So if you see a content change that looks like it is riddled with a specific point of view (POV), you can discuss the POV of that change, but you should avoid trying to pin that POV on the person responsible for that change. Even if the person says that they are of that POV, that is inconsequential to the content itself. For example lets say that both you and I are working on an article about Australian Defence Force, and you see me making some changes that appear have an Australian bias, you are supposed to ignore the fact that I am Australian, and work on the content. If you were to suggest that I had an Australian bias, you would probably be wrong in a case like this, because on the topic of the ADF I am rather ambivalent -- any bias in my edits on that topic would probably be the result of a media bias that I wasnt able to shake loose. i.e. I could have taken the facts from a local source that wasnt being accurate, and I would probably thank you for correcting my bias. Can you see that avoiding attacking me for my bias is the simplest approach to getting on with the business of fixing the content.

"This process has reached a level or ridiculousness that it has been truly difficult to take anyone here seriously."

There is no obligation that you take Misplaced Pages seriously or participate. But, if you do take Misplaced Pages seriously, then you need to come to terms with the simple reality that the process in play here, and the people involved, exist because they have been found to be the most effective means of operating. Improvements are made all the time, and that is what the Arbitration Committee is all about, so if you have serious suggestions, you should put a few hours aside and draft an opinion that focuses on the problems and complexities that you have faced without being overly antagonistic to other editors, and submit it. If you don't have the time, grab some popcorn, and say a prayer that our Arbitration Committee members do the right thing. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

, so if you have serious suggestions, I made serious suggestions. The fact that you've ignored means you're just paying me lip service. I pray for a lot of things. Wiki, is not one of them. Matt Sanchez (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody who is involved is ignoring your comments. Even if you dont post them to the correct location, or direct me where to put them, they will be taken into account by the Arbitration Committee. The process can take a few weeks, depending on the complexity, so sit tight for a while before accusing everyone of ignoring you. My involvement will be limited to keeping the process moving, and tidy. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is just childish. I didn't "edit" I commented. No one differentiated one from the other. The whole process has been wrought with wannabe control freaks who dominate in a sheltered virtual domain. I found it not only frustrating (frustration can be edifying especially as a delay to gratification) but it was all just fruitless. I also see the weaknesses and tyrannical nature of speech codes and the ideology that enforces them. Matt Sanchez (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment removed from evidence

I have removed a comment you placed in "Evidence presented by aatombomb". This is simply because the evidence page states:

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section.

i.e. only add your own evidence that you think is pertinent; it is arbcom's job to sift through the evidence and find the meat. As a result, I suggest you indicate which of those diff's, if any, you consider to be insightful, and why. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)