< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 09:51, 10 December 2008 (→Limited unblock with conditions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:51, 10 December 2008 by Daniel (talk | contribs) (→Limited unblock with conditions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Case Opened on 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - (initiating party)
Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (unblocked to participate in arbitration case)
Mattsanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)

*Allstarecho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JMarkievicz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Aatombomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wjhonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Bluemarine (September 16, 2007 - January 6, 2008)

Statement by WJBscribe

Matt Sanchez is a controversial article - the subject is a right-wing blogger/journalist, who has at times been embedded with the U.S. military. He was also previously featured in a number of pornographic films. The balance in Misplaced Pages's article between the two periods of his life has long proved tricky. A number of tendentious editors have been blocked from Misplaced Pages as a result of aggressive behaviour and personal attacks in pushing an "anti-Sanchez" point of view e.g. Pwok (talk · contribs) who runs a website dedicated to making attacks against Sanchez. Matt Sanchez edits Misplaced Pages himself as Bluemarine (talk · contribs) and Mattsanchez (talk · contribs) and has been embroiled in a number of heated debates on the article's talkpage for some months.

The situation in relation to this article and Matt Sanchez's editing of Misplaced Pages is now in my opinion beyond the ability of the community to handle. The article has been fully protected from the end of September until the end of December and has now once again been protected due to an OTRS complaint (#2008010510008921). The article's talkpage has had to be semi protected due to attacks being made by IP editors. Matt Sanchez was blocked by me for 48 hours for personal attacks against other users. Shortly after this block expired he was again blocked by Coredesat (talk · contribs) indefinitely. With the blocking admin's consent I have shortened this to one week (in recognition of the article including BLP violations at the time - accusations of prostitution) and would recommend an unblock to participate in this case were it accepted. Matt Sanchez seems convinced that his article is beng written by "gay jihadists" and has continued to edit it himself despite warnings about WP:COI and WP:AUTO. He makes frequent use of homophobic slurs and personal attacks against other editors , , . Sanchez's hostility towards other editors is mirrored by various attempts that have been made to bait him by other parties , including various IPs and sole purpose accounts. There is a dispute between admins as to whether Sanchez's latest comment warrants an indefinite block under WP:NLT.

ArbCom involvement is required to review both the conduct of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) and of those involved in editing the Matt Sanchez article and its talkpage, particularly with a view to personal attacks being exchanged and a failure to assume good faith and respect consensus on both sides.

Statement by Allstarecho

Regarding the numerous comments left here by those involved that say Sanchez was blocked because of his reaction to the alleged BLP content: Sanchez was indef blocked because of his violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NOT and WP:COI. 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.

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 suggests - 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 12:23

Therefore, the statement above by WJBscribe saying, With the blocking admin's consent I have shortened this to one week (in recognition of the article including BLP violations at the time - accusations of prostitution) isn't accurate because Sanchez wasn't indef blocked because of his reactions to the alleged BLP violations at the time of the block. Therefore, my involvement is mostly regarding the BLP violations, or what has been called BLP violations. I still don't agree that they are violations but do accept that there is policy to follow. The fact is, the BLP violation was sourced content where Sanchez on one occasion wrote a Salon.com article himself in which he admitted that he used to be a male prostitute and on another occasion where he again admitted himself in a FOX News radio interview to Alan Colmes that he used to be a male prostitute. Now he's denying he was ever a male prostitute, regardless of his very own admissions in the media. I've reworked the content to where it presents both sides - his own admissions to it and his denial of it - so that BLP is moot. The fact is that Sanchez thinks he owns this article and has done everything he can to remove anything from his past since his present is now as a "Born again Christian Republican U.S. Marine embedded blogger".

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.

As for the rest of WJBscibe's statement, I concur. -- ALLSTARecho 04:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am removing myself from this case. It has went from "Matt Sanchez's (aka Bluemarine and Mattsanchez) behavior and what is/isn't BLP violations in the related article", to allegations of email fraud, bank account fraud and SPAs now contriting this whole thing. As my only involvement was adding one section of content that was questioned as a BLP violation, and it being removed by an admin, I don't see any reason to continue to monitor or participate in this circus. My involvement was as an editor of the article, which only occured once. All of this other bullshit has nothing to do with me and since the focus of the case has moved way beyond what it was opened for in the first place, I want nothing else to do with this case. ALLSTARecho 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Aatombomb

I'm indifferent on ArbCom considering the case. I think the issues could be resolved by relying on standard policies, provided there were clarifications of the BLP policy. I understand the reluctance of administrators to block Sanchez given that he is the subject of the article. However, I think the administrators have been far too cautious with Sanchez to the point which it appears very uneven and inconsistent. That is, Sanchez generally gets a pass, but they seem to be rather quick to block some of the other parties involved.

Moreover, even the most controversial edits could hardly be considered 'libelous' as Horologium has characterized them above. Nothing was being placed in the article that wasn't reliably sourced, so 'libel' is a gross overstatement. I believe the fundamental question is: if a statement is made in a reliable source that is later countered by the subject, is it not acceptable to include that source in an BLP? In the case of Sanchez, there have been numerous situations where Sanchez has attempted to 'adjust' the meaning of prior statement; making a relatively unambiguous statement and then later stating "that's not what I meant."

Horologium also claims that editors have stripped all but the most salacious details from the article. He seems to be supporting Sanchez's repeated contention that there is some sort of LGBT conspiracy at work. It is impossible not to include these 'salacious' events, as they are largely the source of Sanchez's notability. No cherry-picking is going on here and the article includes almost every source about Sanchez that meets guidelines for notability. What has been stripped have been Sanchez's repeated self-serving edits that on review are either unsourced or not sufficiently notable for inclusion here.

The question of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NOT and WP:COI violations by Sanchez hardly needs an arbitration committee to establish. Sanchez's violations are obvious, rampant, and have continued for quite some time now. It is redundant to comment on them here. I think the community is equipped to deal with any future violations, provided that the administrators choosing to intervene are well-informed about his past behavior.

If you must take an action, I will say that things have been much civil since Sanchez was prevented from editing the article. This is what it took before that block was instituted: Aatombomb (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Matt Sanchez

During this whole process, I've felt more prosecuted than edited. Editors such as AAtombomb claim to want "to keep me honest" or get at the truth, all the while ignoring simply verifiable facts. In fact, someone like Aatombomb has been the anti-thesis of an editor and a major part of the problem. In my opinion, there is a lot of bias among the editors to the point where it is simply impossible to accept any suggestion from someone like Aatombomb. This person can't disputes the fact that I wish to be called by my name and not "Mateo". With such little respect for me on a personal level how can I possibly trust him/her with a project on me that is supposed to be unbiased? I ask you, why in the world would this person even want to edit an article on my subject?

My article has been political from the start, and it's impossible to separate the politics and agendas from why I even got national attention in the first place. Even experienced editors like Allstarecho have made "bad decisions" and swear they are "justified" because of some affiliation or ideology. For the 9 months that this article has existed, I've never seen Allstarecho, yet suddenly he/she is convinced he/she is an expert on this article. The intensity and activity of too many on this board make me very suspicious and I feel justifiably so.

I find it interesting that everyone who transcribes the now infamous Alan Colmes interviews choses to leave out all the "no, no" I repeated and insisted on. They also only play 6 minutes of a show that lasted three hours.

Consequently, there is a 2nd interview and I'll be uploading that as soon as I'm able to.

I was told the editors, who are all volunteers, are very busy. As a correspondent, I too am very busy as the demands on my time have very recently increased and I plan to wed. Following this article on the talk page has been tedious, but I believe it has been rewarding as long as I get a fair shake. Unfortunately, because of many of the editors I've cited above, I do not think I have had a fair shake. The Misplaced Pages project potential is far greater than the gratuitous ad hominem attacks that have plagued the Matt Sanchez talk page. Unfortunately, and to my discredit and embarrassment I too have taken part in some of this behavior. I would like to move forward, but many of the contributors need to be left behind. Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

- - This may be my imagination, but I've written and saved this twice and my statement has specific parts missing from it. Third try.

Statement by Wjhonson

First I'm not sure if it's proper to add yourself to an RfA but I have been away from this article for a while and now see that it's gone way beyond palatable.

Sanchez has stated on the Alan Colmes show, which the audio is available, that he worked as a male prostitute. He did not state this once, but twice. There was no confusion at all about what Alan was asking him. You are welcome to listen to the audio yourself and decide.

Now I see certain individuals have taken it upon themselves to force a white-wash of the issue. BLP does not require us to white-wash a person, just because they wish they hadn't said something which they did in-fact say. When readers realize that we have distorted the evidence how is that going to make us look? Wjhonson (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I also want to point out that certain Admins, personally involved in content disputes, have also used power to silence dissent. I personally find the use of power to silence dissent to be unethical. The entire Pwok episode could have been prevented. We were all working together toward consensus *before* admin-force was applied. When power is applied, and people feel applied unjustly, the situation can spiral out-of-control. And we see it happened here. While Sanchez may have the right to add self-published statements, he does not necessarily have the right to excise statements we glean from otherwise acknowledged reliable sources. The constant pressure to bend our integrity to protect him from his own statements is why we're here. Wjhonson (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something in Matt's statement above I hadn't previously. He claims or insinuates that there was some "no, no" or whatever in his interview that completely reverses whatever impression given previously. I dispute that. Matt's article has been here for what about a year or a little less? In that entire time he has never, not once, not ever, been able to provide any source, reliable or not, that contradicts what he said on that show. It would be super terrific if he could. I would really welcome being able to show more details. As you can see, I'm into details. In fact I'm going to ask Alan now if there's a transcript of the entire show. Wjhonson (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

I've seen enough to convince me that this case should be accepted. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Accept to review the behaviour of all parties. --bainer (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Accept per bainer. -- FayssalF - 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Accept. We can help here. As usual, the behavior of all involved editors will be examined. FloNight (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Decorum

1) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.