Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Bluemarine

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Allstarecho (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 10 January 2008 (→Bluemarine blocked again: layout fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:00, 10 January 2008 by Allstarecho (talk | contribs) (→Bluemarine blocked again: layout fix)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

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. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Coredesat

Bluemarine is the subject of Matt Sanchez

As stated in various places, Bluemarine is Matt Sanchez, and this is where most of the issues took place.

User:Mattsanchez

Bluemarine is Sanchez's second account; the first had been blocked by Durova in early November after making a comment that appeared to be a legal threat; Durova subsequently unblocked it after the comment was clarified, and the account's last edit was on 22 December.

I blocked the Mattsanchez account again on 5 January, and did not shorten or remove its block afterward to prevent potential sockpuppet abuse.

Multiple ANI threads

Bluemarine's behavior and various disputes on Talk:Matt Sanchez were reported in three threads on WP:ANI on 5 January within a few hours of one another:

  1. - thread started by Allstarecho
  2. - thread started by Lawrence Cohen
  3. - thread started by User:Benjiboi

There was also one thread on 2 January, which apparently resulted in a block.

The first thread on 5 January was closed by WJBscribe after he referred the matter to the ArbCom.

Bluemarine has been incivil and made personal attacks despite warnings

Bluemarine had been blocked for 48 hours on 3 January after making these comments. The block expired early on 5 January, and he resumed being incivil on Talk:Matt Sanchez, accusing other editors (particularly LGBT editors) of being part of a conspiracy to defraud him. Prior to this, he had been given at least 22 warnings, 4 of them final warnings.

Diffs from 5 January: , , , , ,

Bluemarine may have been baited

I originally blocked Bluemarine indefinitely for violating policies such as WP:NPA, WP:COI, WP:CIV, and WP:NOT (WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND). However, WJBscribe pointed out that an edit war had broken out on Matt Sanchez, with User:Allstarecho apparently taking advantage of Bluemarine's block by adding this questionably sourced material. No users violated WP:3RR, but the material violated WP:BLP. Two hours after the material was added, Bluemarine made a legal threat that he later withdrew. More than likely he made the comment in direct response to the content being added to the article on him.

At first I was hesitant to shorten the block (because I was convinced Bluemarine had violated policy), but I didn't know the entire story at the time. After discussing the issue with WJBscribe, I told him I had no problem with reducing Bluemarine's block to one week (which he did) and bringing the discussion to ArbCom, which it probably should have been in the first place given the history of this issue.

There is evidence Sanchez was baited in the past, as well, but I don't have any diffs at this time, although this diff shows that Allstarecho has baited other users. Shortly after that comment, he and Law Lord got into a bit of a fight that resulted in both of them being blocked (Allstarecho for 24 hours, Law Lord for 48). --Coredesat 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Lawrence Cohen

Coredesat's evidence basically sums up what I was going to present. I'll add:

RFC on Bluemarine

Eight users certified a behavior RFC on Bluemarine's actions.

COI violations

The subject of Matt Sanchez has extensively edited that article as User:Bluemarine. Evidence, in violation of WP:COI.

Bluemarine has made hateful and bigoted comments in an ongoing manner

Will post these once I have a chance to collect them, and this is what I noticed first on this situation. These are in direct violation of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Personal attacks, and primarily target a minority. Whether or not you have a problem with the gays, Blacks, Jews, French, or whomever, is not Misplaced Pages's business. Hate whomever you want to hate, but don't share that nonsense here. May be a violation of Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Targeted personal attacks as well. Additional comments were directed at "liberals" and other groups. Evidence of hateful comments can be found here on the RFC. A sample of the comments that led up to the RFC:

  1. 03/26/07 middle-aged, White homosexual who has declared Jihad on me.
  2. 03/26/07 another gay Jihadist", "these fags," "faceless cowards"
  3. 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
  4. 03/28/07 people like you, who define your lives through sex
  5. 03/31/07 pure heresay by the gay jihadist who have become so passionately linked to this pseudo-issue.
  6. 04/30/07 How self-important are you? You really are nuttier than a fruitcake.
  7. 04/30/07 Code Pink is rallying their Forces
  8. 04/30/07 Your queer bias is showing
  9. 04/30/07 you're such a cowardly effete
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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".
  14. 09/16/07 yet another gay activist who feels threatened by anyone who doesn't agree with your fragile view of the world


More comments of this nature continued after the RFC... (Need to collect diffs)

Bluemarine appears unrepentant

Prior to arbitration, Bluemarine was blocked for personal attacks, which was finally set at one week. He was unblocked to participate only in Arbitration and was specifically told this. As Bluemarine is a skilled Wikipedian who has been around a long time now, this would be obvious: don't edit elsewhere. However, Bluemarine immediately began again editing other parts of the encyclopedia, including some incendiary, NPOV-violating edits to political topics. He was thus re-blocked, and his response was not positive, and included more anti-gay statements, worst of all:

  • "Another form totalitarianism / By the thought police." Link.
  • "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." Link.

Evidence presented by aatombomb

Bluemarine has made hateful and bigoted comments in an ongoing manner

This represents only diffs from the last month. I think this is sufficient to establish a pattern of abuse, however I know for a fact that there are more examples. Other editors are invited to present that evidence.

  1. 1/5/08 "although gay culture, entertainment and pass-time is by definition pornographic."
  1. 1/5/08 "No part of smearing me made sense except in the venereal diseased mind of radicals on a self-righteous jihad."
  2. 1/5/08 "The homos said nothing."
  3. 12/25/07 "He's an angry male homosexual who knows that gay sex is humiliating, even though that's what he lives for"
  4. 12/27/07 "ANOTHER homosexual"
  5. 12/27/07 "most of the editors on this page are homosexuals engaged in the radical movement. "
  6. 12/27/07 "This is not a matter of civility. I am correct, his/her "opinion is worthless here" is a factual statement."
  7. 12/27/07 "Another gay porn groupie."
  8. 12/25/07 "This article, in contrast, has become a stomping ground for lunatics"
  9. 12/20/07 "It's obvious the homosexualists, gay activists, are running this editorial board and you can barely fake it"
  10. 12/17/07 "Now, I'm being judged for insulting homosexuals?? Can you get any more ridiculous?? The RFC ran its course and was proven baseless."
  11. 12/17/07 "other than redundant homosexual activist template that everything is supposed to fit in to. "
  12. 12/16/07 "It's known that homosexuals consume more porn, it's part of the sex-addict culture,"
  13. 12/15/07 "Bi videos are a subset of the gay niche" the same way kiddie porn is a subset of the gay niche. You may have a point there.


You should explain why any of this is bigoted or hateful. Several of these comments show great insight. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine has also made hateful remarks and personal attacks on other sites

Bluemarine/Sanchez has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks on bwog.net, a Columbia University affiliated website. Sanchez made the following comment anonymously . However, using the 'track' feature at the site, the anonymous commenter was revealed to be a user identifying as Matt Sanchez. The user made this comment as well as the five comments after (revealed by clicking 'track' at the BWOG site.)

Sanchez attempted similar sockpuppetry here at Misplaced Pages but was discovered:

Sanchez has made similar comments at youtube.com and at livelink.com.

Bluemarine's attacks on editors are not limited to the context of the Matt Sanchez article

Bluemarine has similarly attacked editors on the Talk:Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy page.

  1. 11/2/07 Attack on Eleemosynary
  2. 12/15/07 Another attack on Eleemosynary
  3. 12/17/07 Another...

Bluemarine has received multiple warnings for violating policies

Friendly advice:

  1. 3/25/07
  2. 4/30/07
  3. 7/21/07
  4. 4/30/07
  5. 5/12/07 WP:AUTO

WP:NPA,WP:CIV:

  1. 5/3/07
  2. 6/22/07
  3. 6/25/07
  4. 6/22/07
  5. 6/27/07
  6. 6/27/07
  7. 9/26/07
  8. 12/1/07
  9. 12/2/07
  10. 1/2/08
  11. 1/3/08 (Blocked)
  12. 1/5/08
  13. 1/5/08 (Indef Block)

Bluemarine had now made two legal threats

  1. 10/31/07 (unblocked upon clarification )
  2. 1/5/08 (legal threat after indef block)


Bluemarine declined to participate in an RFC on his actions

The RFC could have settled some of this months ago. However, bluemarine decline/refused to participate in the RFC.

  1. RFC
  2. Notification and request to participate

A reply to evidence presented against me

I would like to respond to the evidence that Horologium presented against me. In the first example that Horologium presented of my 3RR and BLP violations, I was clearly in the wrong. I attempted to add unsourced or poorly sourced information back into the article. My only explanation for this was my own ignorance of the policies. I was also much less familiar with the standards for references and citation. Although Mecu attempted to contact me about this, I did not see or understand his talk messages until I was well over the line. I have since familiarized myself with the policies and have attempted to apply greater discretion in my edits since then.

Regarding the second incident, I do not think it is quite so clear.

  1. The passage in question was first introduced on 6/10/07, note that Elonka placed the following edit summary on the edit: "(modifying to consensus version, per talk (one paragraph temporarily removed pending discussion))"
  2. The next edit was my addition of the prostitution allegation .
  3. The next edit on 6/11/07 is by Elonka with the edit summary "tweaking punctation" i.e. putting a period after the word 'prostitution.' #
  4. The edit as I made it stood until 6/23/07 when is was reworded by WJBScribe with the edit summary "Marine Corps inquiry - rephrase per WP:BLP and WP:NOT#TABLOID." Note that WJBScribe did not offer further explanation - he made the following comments on the talk page: ,, but neither of them address the BLP issue with the main article. (Note in the second edit I did not make the comment in question, but restored it after somebody else blanked it.)
  5. After that I reverted WJBScribe's edit
  6. WJBScribe reverted it again with the edit summary "(rv - absolutely no reason to have an allegation unsubstantiate by reliable sources in an article about a living person)"

I let the matter drop at this point due to the 3RR; I did not want to be blocked. Nevertheless, the prostitution allegation is directly from the Military Times article and it had already been deemed a reliable source in the discussion. I think it was unfair of WjBScribe to make these edits without justifying his application of the BLP policy, especially after the extensive discussion of the source in question.

It wasn't until three months later that I attempted to make the edit again:

  1. my edit on 9/26/07.
  2. This was again reverted by WJBScribe with the following edit summary "(rv - per WP:BLP - sources not strong enough to support "admission of prostitution")."
  3. RYoung22 reverted WJBScribe's revert of my edit with the irrelevant summary "(openly admitting to it on Hannity and Colmes doesn't count? Running ads in the gay mags doesn't count? PUHLEEZE.)" Irrelevant because the article source makes no reference to Hannity and Colmes or running ads.
  4. WJBScribe made the next edit stating "(rv - refusing to deny something is not an admission. And the connection between him and the ads is pure OR)" Again, the article in question was deemed reliable previously and the edit summary wasn't even apropos to the contents of the Hoellwarth article.
  5. The next revert was mine with the edit summary "(rv - Read the source article - admission of prositution is direct from it.)" which was absolutely true.
  6. Horologium made the next edit with the summary "(Undid revision 160389099 by Aatombomb (talk) as per WjBscribe.)" As per WjBScribe, who reverted the article with a summary that didn't even address the substance of my edit and the fact that I was using a reliable source as far as I understood. WjBScribe made two edits at to the Talk:Matt Sanchez page on 9/26/07 neither of them provide any explanation for his application of BLP.

As far as I can see,I clearly did not violate 3RR. The notion that I was working in tandem with RYoung22 is silly. Furthermore, no effort was made to explain why BLP applied when the edit I made was practically direct from a reliable source. If I was in violation of BLP I still do not understand why and the editors who reverted the article after me really ought to have explained exactly how I was in violation of this policy. I have yet to see any explanation that deal specifically with the Military Times source (which was deemed reliable in discussion on the talk page which required persuading Elonka who was doing her best to forge a compromise.) As I see it, "related allegations" is a euphemism, an editorialization, and inaccurate. It also fails to address the substance and serious nature of the investigation. Porn acting is not a crime; prostitution is.

I also see, going through the edits that other users were creating a lot of noise at the same time as I was doing this so I can understand why I may have been lumped in with those users. Nevertheless, I don't think it is fair to imply that I am to blame for the three-month protection of the article.

Evidence presented by Allstarecho

Regarding Coredesat's evidence

I certainly resent the failure to assume good faith by Coredesat. It would appear he has some sort of dislike, if not vendetta, for/against me based on this edit. To say that I took advantage of Bluemarine's block by adding BLP violating content is offensive and absurd.

Firstly, is it not possible that I was looking over the article and performing general editing in the midst of a block? I say, it is indeed possible.

Secondly, I added the alleged BLP content at 16:36. I didn't even know he was blocked until I noticed it at ANI at 17:19. I then posted an FYI notice of the block to User:Benjiboi's talk page at 17:23. I further posted an FYI notice of the block at 17:34 at Talk:Matt Sanchez.

Thirdly,the content is not in violation of any BLP policy as the content was sourced with 1)an article written by Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez himself at Salon.com where he admitted to having been a male prostitute and 2)a FOX News radio interview with Alan Colmes where Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez himself, in his own voice with his own mouth, admitted not once but twice to having been a male prostitute. Now, Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez denies he was ever a male prostitute. I have since reworked that content to include his admissions, with the sources, as well as including his denials that he ever was a prostitute.

Coredesat said also that this diff shows that I have baited other users. What Coredesat failed to mention, maybe because he didn't see it, was that in fact, I was the one that got baited by this diff and again by this diff by the same user, Law Lord.

Back to the issue at hand

Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez was indef blocked because of his violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NOT and WP:COI by Coredesat. Therefore, his block wasn't because of his reaction to the alleged BLP content nor was it because of his legal threat against Misplaced Pages as these violations occured before the alleged BLP content was added to the article by me.

These are the relevant history links for the reasons that Coredesat (talk · contribs) blocked Sanchez:

Violation by Sanchez at 06:35 January 5, 2008
Violation by Sanchez at 09:32 January 5, 2008
Violation by Sanchez at 10:01 January 5, 2008
Violation by Sanchez at 15:51 January 5, 2008
Violation by Sanchez at 15:56 January 5, 2008
Violation by Sanchez at 15:58 January 5, 2008
Violation by Sanchez at 16:04 January 5, 2008
Violation by Sanchez at 16:07 January 5, 2008

All of the above violations occured before my addition of the alleged BLP content to the article and so therefore, Sanchez was not baited by the BLP content - as WJBscribe has suggested - as the violations above are the reason he got an indef block in the first place. In fact, Sanchez made no more comments at the article itself after his last at 16:15 January 5, 2007 and the only other comment he left was an {{unblock}} tag on his own talk page at 17:38 January 5, 2007 saying he would sue Misplaced Pages.

Allstarecho (talk · contribs): Added alleged BLP content to Matt Sanchez January 5, 2008 @ 16:36
Coredesat (talk · contribs): Left notice of indef block on Bluemarine's talk page January 5, 2008 at 17:21
Coredesat (talk · contribs): Tagged Bluemarine's user page with {{indefblockeduser}} January 5, 2008 at 17:23

As I stated on my own talk page, regarding my alleged BLP violation, I made a bad decision - bad as far a policy is concerned. While I still feel the information is valid because it is reliably sourced and admitted to by the subject of the article in an article he himself wrote and in a radio interview recording with FOX News, I should have not reverted admin SatyrTN (talk · contribs)'s removal of the information - if for nothing more than the simple fact that I hold great respect and admiration for SatyrTN. Unfortunately, I made the reversion because I feel it is appropriate material (again, I've since edited it to include both sides thereby avoiding BLP issues and posted the edited version to the article's talk page for discussion). Aleta (talk · contribs), another WP individual I have great respect for, removed it again, and she opened the discussion at BLP talk. That was the end of it, as discussion was now taking place in 2 different areas of WP.

WP:OWN/WP:COI/WP:CIV

The fact is, Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez thinks he owns the Matt Sanchez article and feels it to include what he wants it to include. If he decides he wants history changed, he changes it. His attacks on other editors who are doing nothing more than trying to present factual and truthful information, is unacceptable and should not be tolerated any longer. He's gotten much more leeway that anyone I've certainly ever seen on Misplaced Pages and I've read other, much longer established, editors and admins say the same thing. Because of his repeated WP:COI violations and repeated warnings of such violations, and according to WP:BAN it is possible to ban a user from editing a specific article while leaving the user free to edit elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, Sanchez should be blocked from editing Matt Sanchez.

Concur

Also referenced evidence regarding Bluemarine's/Matt Sanchez's behavior as submitted by Coredesat, Lawrence Cohen and aatombomb as well as all referenced evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bluemarine.

Edit war and BLP evidence presented by Horologium below regarding me

As was stated by Horologium below, I was blocked by WJBscribe. What Horologium failed to mention was that that I was blocked 8 hours after the alleged edit war/BLP violation by WJBscribe and that WJBscribe didn't have all of the facts. He didn't know that in fact there was no edit war and after being reverted twice, once by Satyr and once by Aleta, we all took the alleged BLP content to a discussion in two different places, here and here. Further, just because another editor says I violated BLP, doesn't mean I did. The content is content admitted to by Sanchez, once in an article he himself wrote and another twice in the same FOX News radio interview with his own mouth. Not everyone agrees it's a BLP violation which is basically why we're in this Arbcom case in the first place. Had everyone believed it was BLP violation, it wouldn't have reached the peak of drama that it did to get here.

Bluemarine blocked again

As further proof of his inability to follow policy, Bluemarine was unblocked so he could participate in this Arbcom case and was told not to edit anywhere else but here at Arbcom. He failed to do so and has since been blocked again. and where he edited at Talk:Matt Sanchez. and where he edited the Melanie Morgan article. where he edited Talk:Waterboarding. After discussion with him regarding the above violations of the restrictions placed on him while he was unblocked to participate in this Arbcom case, he was unblocked again - and again he violated those restrictions by editing at Talk:Matt Sanchez. See and . For some reason, for this second offense of plainly spelled out restrictions of his unblock, he wasn't blocked again. However, User:Jayvdb did remove all of these edits from Talk:Matt Sanchez.

Evidence presented by Horologium

Sanchez has been trolled

None of these personal attacks remain; they have all been reverted, but show up in the edit history. Other attacks may have been deleted or oversighted; I have access to neither, so I do not know if they exist.

(Reverted) personal attacks on User:Bluemarine

  • , , , , by User:Bigjohnson12445. (Throwaway SPA account; these are the only four contributions of this account, which was created immediately prior to the first diff.)
  • , by User:BigJohnson12. (Second throwaway account, created after first account was blocked. A checkuser request determined that they were not sockpuppets of Bluemarine, which had been asserted by Aatombomb ).

(Reverted) personal attacks on Sanchez at Talk:Matt Sanchez

Sanchez was the target of a POINTy template edit

User:Allstarecho edited {{User USMC}}, a template which appears on Matt Sanchez's userpage (and that of only one other user), with an exceptionally WP:POINTy change. His edit summary made it clear he knew that it could be considered disruptive. When it was reverted by User:Lawrence Cohen (who later self-reverted), ASE stated that the template was open for editing for everyone. He also discussed the edit here, in a discussion about Sanchez on User:Benjiboi's talk page, which makes the context of the edit blindingly obvious. (ASE's subsequent TFD nomination was apparently a good-faith nomination, based on his contribution history and the comment he left on Benjiboi's talk page, but the timing is very bad, coming two days before an RFAR in which it was bound to be an issue.)

Single Purpose Accounts

For whatever reason, Matt Sanchez and its associated talk page attracts many single purpose accounts, whose editing is narrowly focused on Matt Sanchez and on articles which relate to him (including policy pages and articles which Sanchez has edited). This is no means anywhere near an exhaustive list, but it does include some of the more active SPA editors involved in this article.

Article page SPA contributors: (numbers as of 7 January 2008)

  • Secondmovement
    • 100% edits Sanchez related
      • article creator
  • GSschool
    • 100% edits Sanchez related
      • Sanchez supporter
  • Pwok
    • 563/600 edits Sanchez related
      • Sanchez antagonist/indef blocked
  • 71.231.140.80
    • 100% edits Sanchez related
      • IP Address for Pwok
  • Eric_usa
    • 100% edits Sanchez related
      • Neutral attitude?
  • JMarkievicz2
    • 130/133 edits Sanchez related
      • Sanchez antagonist
  • Aatombomb
    • 396/428 edits Sanchez related
      • Sanchez antagonist

Talk Page SPA contributors not already listed (these users have no edits to the article, only the talk page):

  • Reelm
    • 50/58 edits Sanchez related
      • Sanchez antagonist
  • Rightwingerpride
    • 100% edits Sanchez related
      • indef block/Sanchez sock
  • 24.18.130.89
    • 100% edits Sanchez related
      • indef block/Pwok sock
  • Harvey 8710
    • 100% edits Sanchez related
      • Sanchez antagonist
  • Truthjusticeamericanway
    • 100% edits Sanchez related
      • indef block/Pwok sock
  • JMarkievicz
    • 100% edits Sanchez related
      • old account for JMarkievicz2


Wikidashboard lists these editors as the top 10 editors to Matt Sanchez: (numbers as of 7 January 2008)

  • Pwok—339 edits
    • SPA
  • Bluemarine—296 edits
    • Subject
  • Elonka—160 edits
    • Admin (not SPA)
  • Wjhonson—101 edits
    • 10,000+ edits in Misplaced Pages (not SPA)
  • Aatombomb—79 edits
    • SPA
  • Horologium—52 edits
    • 7,000+ edits to Misplaced Pages (not SPA)
  • GSschool—49 edits
    • SPA
  • Aleta—48 edits
    • 6200+ edits to Misplaced Pages (not SPA)
  • 71.231.140.80—44 edits
    • SPA
  • Eric usa—40 edits
    • SPA

User:Aatombomb has edit warred and violated BLP

on 21 April 2007:

  • (reverted by Mecu ),
  • (reverted by Mecu ),
  • and (both reverted by Mecu ),
  • (reverted by Mecu ),
  • (reverted by Cbrown1023 ).
    • Page was then fully protected due to BLP concerns by CBrown 1023 and then Aatombomb was blocked , after which the page protection was changed to semi-protection .

On 25 September 2007:

  • (Reverted by WjBscribe )
  • (reverted by Horologium )
    • Article was fully protected by Alison , citing WP:EW/WP:RPP/WP:BLP. Page remained fully protected for over three months.

Note that both of these sequences resulted in the article being fully protected (citing BLP in both cases), and because of the first sequence Aatombomb was blocked for BLP violation (although he also violated 3RR). He was warned about both the BLP violation and the 3RR limit by Mecu (, , ). In the second case, he worked in tandem with User:Ryoung122 to revert the removal of the material three times (RYoung122's edit and WjBScribe's reversion fell in between Aatombomb's two diffs in the 25 September sequence).

User:Allstarecho edit warred and violated BLP

On 5 January 2008:

  • (reverted by SatyrTN )
  • and (reverted by Aleta )
  • Article was then fully protected by Random 832 , citing OTRS. (The likely cause of the OTRS complaint was the reinsertion of the escorting allegations. Removal of the section resulted in a retraction of the legal threat leveled by Sanchez.) Page is still fully protected.
    • Allstarecho was blocked by WjBscribe for BLP violation. Block was lifted 1H, 22M later.

Allstarecho was notified by SatyrTN that the escorting allegations violated BLP after his first edit. ()

Evidence presented by Durova

Bluemarine made one WP:NLT violation, not two

I blocked Bluemarine for a legal threat in October because he had made an ambiguous statement about an intent to sue. From the wording of his statement it was unclear whether he intended to sue a news source, Misplaced Pages, or one or more editors. Not long afterward he clarified that he had been referring to an intent to sue the news source. So I unblocked because I saw no violation of WP:NLT in a statement of intent to sue a third party outside Misplaced Pages. Durova 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Typing_Monkey

History of incivility and personal attacks

Whether or not Sanchez has been "trolled" is irrelevant. There is no excuse for Bluemarine's long history of making personal attacks on others. Here is another small sampling of his history of rude and bullying behavior.

March 18, 2007 # ...a liar who says he knows the people he writes about, when he's just another groupie trying to call attention to himself.

March 24, 2007 # The Gay LGBTProject has a VERY biased Beef against Me (Matt Sanchez) Since they are political and extremely malicious, they will do pretty much anything to discredit and slur me.

March 28, 2007 # Jihadist because people have issued a fatwa because gay men, like yourself, who have a personal bias against me because you feel threatened by someone who doesn't agree with you.

April 29, 2007 # ...go find someone to bash you and move on.

April 30, 2007 # Your bias is showing. What a pathetic person you are. You're telling me "You didn't do what I wanted, so I'm going to smear you." No wonder those kids teased you for being a sissy back in elementary school. You could take a lesson from your buddy Edwards and the "I feel Pretty Video" I posted on my blog

April 30, 2007 # You're like the kid who didn't want to go to the prom, so you spend all your time complaining about how stupid proms are and who cool you are. Get a hobby.

May 15, 2007 # This "box" should be eliminated, it looks like yet another attempt from gay men to turn me into a fetish symbol. What's next? Penis size? These people are perverts.

July 18, 2007 # My understanding is that has reviewed the films and is some kind of gay porn addict. This may be a case of groupie fatal attraction

July 22, 2007 # "Sanchez has everything, looks, intelligence, education and people like him. I'm just a paranoid, conspiracy, unhappy, unattractive homosexual who has lost too much money on escorts who obviously aren't interested in me"

December 26, 2007 # This user has a virtual life to substitute the vapidity of reality.

Legal threats

He was recently blocked for making a legal threat, but it was not the first time he had done so.

April 30, 2007 # "By the time this is over, Wiki will be sued"

Evidence presented by Matt Sanchez

I'd like to put all the evidence of bias and misconduct, but I frankly lack the skills and ability to find those pages and cite them as expertly as it has been done above. I believe the one purpose account is a very persuasive argument for restricting the access to editing this article to trusted, unbias editors. I also believe the LGBT label has inspired activism as the LGBT agenda is quite political.Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.