Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:35, 14 October 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: 04:46, 26 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. He is suspected of currently using an anonymous IP sockpuppet (User_talk:216.40.86.166).

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#Caution

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#WP:AUTO

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)

1. 03/18/07 a liar who says he knows the people he writes about, when he's just another groupie trying to call attention to himself
2. 03/26/07 middle-aged, White homosexual who has declared Jihad on me.
3. 03/26/07 another gay Jihadist", "these fags," "faceless cowards"
4. 03/26/07 The Gay community is filled with vicious people who really have an agenda of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them
5. 03/26/07 I added the Movie Minute to this section because it is demonstrably my property
6. 03/28/07 people like you, who define your lives through sex
7. 03/31/07 pure heresay by the gay jihadist who have become so passionately linked to this pseudo-issue.
8. 04/29/07 go find someone to bash you and move on
9. 04/29/07 Hopefully, this page won't turn into some "political tool" for the LGBT social reformers
10. 04/30/07 How self-important are you? You really are nuttier than a fruitcake.
11. 04/30/07 Code Pink is rallying their Forces
12. 04/30/07 Your queer bias is showing
13. 04/30/07 you're such a cowardly effete
14. 07/13/07 I am not a "professional journalist"..."gay activist bias"...
15. 07/14/07 Salon piece should be in the articles section...
16. 07/14/07 there needs to be a separation between mainstream media and Gay/Homosexual media which has lead this jihad. Principally, the gay bloggers and liberals
17. 07/18/07 There should be some kind of profile on those contributing. If you're just some faceless drive by hater with some hostile gay liberal agenda that should be stated up front
18. 07/20/07 the "gay community" seems to have a particular interest in distorting this record as evidenced by all the homosexuals who constantly attack me
19. 07/21/07 New editors pop up and claim to have all kinds of authority. Is there some kind of vetting process?
20. 07/21/07 Who are you anayway
21. 07/22/07 I won't deny it." is not wanting to add fire to the flames. It's called diplomacy. I'm clear and precise in my writing. both of you are interpreting, projecting or just crossing your fingers.
22. 07/22/07 I'm just a paranoid, conspiracy, unhappy, unattractive homosexual who has lost too much money on escorts who obviously aren't interested in me
23. 07/27/07 Benjiboy has already pinned this site on me. There's nothing "balanced and neutral" about this guy
24. 07/27/07 I u nderstand you may be a gay porn groupie, but that interview was written by some hack at the studio. I'm really tired of catty gay men taking pot shots at me. If the sodomites on this board are so angry I faked gay sex on video you should find another way of defining yourselves beyond "Top" and "bottom".
25. 09/05/07 Looks like a lot of comments by three people. None of whom are actually Marines.
26. 09/16/07 yet another gay activist who feels threatened by anyone who doesn't agree with your fragile view of the world
27. 09/16/07 not assuming good faith and is frankly out of the loop, disrespectful and hateful. He also seems fixated on 'gay'"
28. 09/16/07 The rules don't prohibit me from editing. There are changes that have been suggested and discussed for months. you have done nothing. The rules say the actual person can make the changes. Why don't you just respond to the changes I've made
29. 09/26/07 yeah, I do consider that male prostitution, although I really did do it to feel superior to people like the bottom feeders trying to edit this article. Now, I'm just glad to have progressed to being a Christian and a conservative.
30. User contributions of 216.40.86.166

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Aatombomb 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. Benjiboi 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
4. 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.)
5. Typing monkey 21:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
6. 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)
7. 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 punished for his behavior. Not to mention prevented from making more personal attacks, right Eddie? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Aatombomb 19:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. Typing monkey 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
4. JMarkievicz2 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
5. 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)
6. I think he should be blocked for a time, but not as "punishment". It should just be done as an effort to try and de-escalate the situation, since all other methods have failed, and Sanchez's comments more often than not are escalating and inflaming the situation. --Elonka 18:43, 4 October 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:

1. Aatombomb 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Typing monkey 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Ryoung122 22:39, 18 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 WJBScribe) these diffs: , and , which are both from June. Sanchez is now clearly in violation of both of these things, as evidenced above. 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.
• 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)
• Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Robertissimo 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC). A substantial (one month?) block should allow other editors to proceed and may give the user in question a chance to cool down...
• Eleemosynary 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Substantial block is definitely warranted.
• Very good summary of the situation, with the minor quibble that Sanchez was an embedded journalist in other countries than just Iraq. But other than that, I competely agree with Horologium's comments. Elonka 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of this comment has been moved to this page's talk page, per standard RfC format.

Involved view by typing_monkey

I haven't been personally targeted by Bluemarine. I've taken offense to the way he's treated other editors. Many of the particularly hateful comments were made on user talk pages rather than the article itself, and those instances are listed under "Repeated Violations of WP:CIV". I think WP:AUTO is obvious and for violations of WP:OWN I think you could list about ninety percent of Bluemarine's edits on the talk pages. Many times he simply ignores civil suggestions and starts a new topic or starts campaigning for the inclusion of a new vanity project. The talk pages have devolved into an endless cloud of sound and fury in which absolutely nothing gets accomplished, and it has been like this for several months. This is the first time I've initiated an RfC. All of the editors who have contributed have spelled out the situation plainly, and thank you for participating. I should have provided a better structure for you to work with. If it ever comes up again I will ask for an advisor to guide me through it. Nevertheless, I believe the RfC with all commentary provides a good picture of the situation.Typing monkey 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My "desired outcome" in the summary was a ban, but to be more specific, I think a substantial, but temporary ban (say 30 days) from editing this article is warranted.Typing Monkey - 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of this comment has been moved to this page's talk page, per standard RfC format.

Users who endorse this summary:

• Elonka 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Macboots

It seems that Bluemarine has violated numerous policies, particularly WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, and WP:CIV. He's also received numerous warnings and it's a little surprising to me that no previous action was taken. I agree that a ban is in order for a period of at least two weeks... he was warned repeatedly and continued to violate policy.

I disagree that the article should be deleted. It certainly seems to be notable enough to generate interest and discussion. Macboots 20:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

• Aatombomb 18:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Note that he has continued to violate policy even with this RFC is open.
• Elonka 18:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved View by User:Ryoung122

It seems that Bluemarine has violated numerous policies, particularly WP:AUTO, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, and WP:CIV.

It is now becoming clear that Sanchez is fueling controversy by lobbing terms such as 'gay jihadists': that is, his value goes up with controversy, so he is fanning the flames, irrespective of Misplaced Pages policy. Note that User Bluemarine (AKA Matt Sanchez) has stated that he is preparing a book, 'Taliban of Tolerance.' Clearly, he is using his article as a personal vanity page and a vehicle of controversy.

Also, I disgree with some of the editing by users who, apparently uncomfortable with the topic, have attempted to censor large parts of factual, relevant information (such as names of videos starring 'Rod Majors'). If you don't want to read about it, don't read it. Deleting material as if this were a TV show for kids is simply not acceptable. It might not be worth banning User Bluemarine so long as he has other, POV followers making similar edits. However, I would support a temporary ban to see if that would change the situation. The bottom line for me is:

A. The article IS notable;

B. The article needs to tell the reader why Matt Sanchez is notable (including his gay porn career), which includes details that may be 'unsavory' to some, although that is in itself a POV opinion;

C. The article needs to be edited to remove POV bias. I note that replacing a loaded phrase like 'male prostitute' with 'escort' might be an acceptable compromise. However, simply re-writing the article as if it never happened, when this was part of the reason the case made it to shows such as Hannity and Colmes, is simply a dangerous path towards too much censorship. This differs clearly from, as stated in the WP: BLP policies that if unsavory details about a person are in the private domain and not reported in the major media, they should not be included, but when the unsavory details pertain to a public figure (i.e. David Vitter, Larry Craig, etc), they should be included. Granted, Matt Sanchez is no senator, but he qualifies for an article on Misplaced Pages in more than one aspect...as both a (former) porn star, a political scandal-figure, and a political blogger/far-right activist.

D. The article needs to conform to accepted international norms, not the personal whim of Matt Sanchez. Thus, his denying that the films he starred in were gay, or denying his factually-cited ethnic heritage, really fly in the face of reality. In the latter case, we can simply note that (*Matt Sanchez does not consider himself to be orientation X or ethnic group Y).

E. Misplaced Pages can support a pluralistic telling of the story, so long as it tells the whole story without redacting parts of it using POV/revisionist lenses. That is, we can write the article noting multiple viewpoints. For example, we could say: "Matt Sanchez has claimed he quit escorting years ago, although evidence produced and shown on Episode X of Hannity and Colmes suggested he was escorting as recently as (year X)."

The bottom line: if we have an article about Jesus, it simply isn't going to be resolveable to demand that the article take only one side. The only solution in the Matt Sanchez controversy is to allow multiple points of view. Given there are only two major sides (right and left), would it be too difficult to simply write the article from a third-party viewpoint, noting the views of both sides on each issue, categorically, so long as that issue is RELEVANT, verifiable, and reportable?Ryoung122 09:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

• Aatombomb 16:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Robertissimo 21:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• JMarkievicz2 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC) His vanity edits aren't limited to his own WP bio. He recently made self-serving edits to an article on Adam Kokesh by adding a reference to his own web site. He's done the same thing to other articles, including but not limited to articles on Max Blumenthal, John Aravosis and the International Socialist Organization.

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.