Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yksin (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 19 September 2007 (→Outside view by Into the Fray: the more fully you document problems with diffs, the easier it is for outside editors to help). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bluemarine

Comments moved

Typing monkey 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Certification of RfC

I'd be glad to look at the diffs & comment as an outside view on this RfC, but I'm afraid my efforts might be wasted because, as of this writing, the RfC hasn't been certified by at least two users who attempted to but failed to resolve the dispute with this user. --Yksin 18:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and certified. This has been a longrunning problem, and multiple attempts to communicate with Sanchez, have not proved successful. I do sympathize that he has been the target of some very vicious personal attacks, both on- and off-wiki, so I feel that he's definitely allowed some leeway in terms of his behavior. Considering the kinds of things that have been said about him, I feel that he's justified in lashing out with a certain amount of anger. But on the other hand, some of the things that he himself has said (especially epithets about sexual behavior) have been completely inappropriate. I have also been disappointed with the way that he has been seeking to either add unsourced information to his bio, or remove well-sourced information, despite numerous attempts to tell him to stop, and despite numerous good-faith editors getting involved in the process and trying to help out. Since Sanchez has continued to act in a manner that is disruptive to Misplaced Pages, at some point we have to be able to say "enough is enough". I think an RfC is a good way of determining whether or not that point has been reached. I hope that Sanchez will be able to actively listen to the comments here, and take them as constructive criticism and not as personal attacks. Towards that goal, I encourage everyone involved to stay as civil and calm as possible. Let's keep in mind that this RfC is not just here so that we can vent frustrations, but so that we can raise awareness of the problem, and figure out how to solve it. --Elonka 19:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, your statement here or some version of it might be good on the actual RfC page, instead of just here on the talk page. --Yksin 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Into the Fray

This discussion has been moved from the main page for this RfC, per standard RfD format.

<begin moved comments>

He has been admonished not to edit the article numerous times. Aatombomb

Clearly so, but this RfC brings this to a far broader stage and invites community consensus. For instance, I have never edited Matt Sanchez (unless it was a vandalism edit I don't remember), don't know who he is, nor do I frankly care. It is a more formalized process that he will hopefully recognize as such and may give him some more pause when it comes to his actions as pertain to WP:NPOV and WP:COI. I do not know how likely that is, hence the reason that I suggested a block if he continues to edit it. Into The Fray /C 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

</end moved comments>

As a point of clarification: according to WP:BAN, it is possible to ban a user from editing a specific article, while leaving them free to edit elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Given the WP:COI issues inherent here, I think this is probably a good idea. But I want to read further before making a more complete comment -- maybe tomorrow or the next day (as I'm crushed for time today). --Yksin 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I learn something new every day. Thanks for your help, Yksin. Into The Fray /C —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I think he should be banned from editing the article and nothing more. Aatombomb 22:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that in every case where someone attempted to resolve this dispute with Blue Marine/Matt Sanchez, the response has been to label the other person a 'fag', 'gay jihadist', etc. Clearly, user BlueMarine isn't interested in finding common ground or resolving disputes.Ryoung122 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw his history of attacks and I find them both distasteful and unacceptables. I just don't see recent evidence of it. As I said in my comments, the "charges" were very poorly "supported" with current behaviors. Did I miss some more recent attack/uncivil edits? Into The Fray /C 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. I've seen allegation that the only reason he hasn't done personal attacks recently is because he was told he'd be blocked if he did it again. In that case, the threat of a block served its purpose: it changed his behavior. Unless more recent evidence shows that it didn't. --Yksin 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How's this for an example, posted yesterday: "Once again, Aatomboob shows his girly bias."

Also, Sanchez/Bluemarine doesn't always sign his comments, so we get an IP address instead of a username, making it easy to miss some of his nastier remarks or questionable edits. JMarkievicz2 00:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly an uncivil comment/personal attack I agree. And, though it came from an IP, it appears to genuinely be Bluemarine/Sanchez, especially so since the WHOIS traces back to Iraq. My point, in case it wasn't clear enough, was that the RfC alleges some pretty serious things, then fails to provide the evidence of them. Much of what I found, I found on my own, and I didn't check through every last edit by IP addresses. In any event, I should be clear that I do think the RfC is both warranted and worthy and that he deserves community censure of one variety or another. Into The Fray /C 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That example, & also his IP use (with proof that he's doing that) should both be documented in the RfC. That's part of what Into the Fray was talking about when he asked for diffs not just links to sections of talk pages. The more that editors who are intimately acquainted with the problems can provide by way of evidence, the easier it is for those of us outside the dispute, like Into the Fray & me, to catch up & understand the issues involved. I wish I had unlimited time to do the research for myself, but I don't. Complete documentation will also help if this case ends up having to go up the line, to ArbCom or something. --Yksin 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)