Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bluemarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluemarine

Contents 1 Comments moved 2 Certification of RfC 3 Outside view by Into the Fray 4 Involved view of Horologium 5 Involved view of Typing Monkey 6 Process, timeline? 7 Spamming the Adam Kokesh article 8 Sockpuppets

[edit] Comments moved

[Cholga's comments were moved to article page with the rest of the comments]Typing monkey 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia, 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)

[edit] 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 ^T/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 Wikipedia. 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 ^T/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 ^T/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 ^T/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)

Indent reset. I've edited my own statement (with strikeouts) and can add in links as well asserting everything I stated but I must admit this is a bit painful to relive it all. Is there somethings that's not there that needs to be or what work should be done to make things clear? I'm new to the process so please forgive me not having a clue what needs to be done. Benjiboi 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that that's really necessary at this point. FYI, I just went through the contributions of every IP user who has edited Matt Sanchez or the article's talk page. I limited to the last month and to comments made to the talk page and I found, I believe, one comment that could potentially have been Sanchez and was mildly uncivil. Maybe a sockpuppet, maybe a meatpuppet, but I don't know. Otherwise, I see nothing. If this is causing you upset, Benji, then don't dwell on it. There's no point. Sit, back, relax and let the RfC do its thing.  :) Into The Fray ^T/C 00:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Wikipedia, I think, need not be a source of stress. Benjiboi 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

<Moved to "Involved View by typing_monkey" on project page.>Typing monkey 03:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved view of Horologium

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

<begin moved comments>

Comment: I disagree with parts of the above summary. Let's not forget that the assertion of notability for this article's existence could be stated to be two-fold:

A. As a major porn star in the early 1990's, it is arguable that Mr. Sanchez was already notable (or would have been had the internet saturation level we have today existed a decade earlier).

B. In a second career as a political lightning-rod. Note that Mr. Sanchez made the most of every opportunity for self-promotion, from claiming anti-military bias at Columbia Univ, meeting Ann Coulter, being on Hannity & Colmes...and all-around changing his story several times and finding issues to argue over that no one would have considered (i.e. assertion that he's not Puerto Rican) had he not brought it up himself.

I do think that User:BlueMarine should be able to edit his own article, but there should at least be some compromise. In some cases, Mr. Sanchez has shifted his posititions and thus contradicted himself. For example, he admitted more than once to being a former 'escort' (male prostitute) but now wants to excise all reference to that in the article. Let's face it, Mr. Sanchez could have chosen NOT to go into porn, not to be an escort, etc. Yet now he is espousing anti-gay positions while calling the gay 'lobby' 'jihadists' and other names. True, there is an agenda, but the agenda is exposing hypocrisy (as was done with Jeff Gannon, Mark Foley, Senator Craig, Ted Haggard, etc).

In addition, there is a degree of misinterpretation by Mr. Sanchez. At every bend, he has tried to distort the facts, even claiming that much of his 'gay porn' work is really aimed at straight people (hardly). Yet starring in gay porn or being a male escort doesn't necessarily make one 'gay'; there is even a term 'gay-for-pay' for straight persons who perform gay sex acts for money. It does, however, make one appear to be hypocritical when espousing far-right media positions...although Mr. Sanchez could argue that he has 'turned over a new leaf'. No one is denying him the right to claim that...we only want to see the past history documented and kept as such. Let's present the facts and let the readers decide for themselves. Deleting facts and sweeping proof under the rug hardly constitutes fairness.Ryoung122 11:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Even the language is litigious. The "claiming" anti-military bias is already offensive as are the accusations for self-promotion.

I am American born and breed. Not Puerto Rican. This is different from Hispanic. If you cannot understand that, read Wikipedia.

There's more lecture and conjecture from the homosexuals editors than anyone else. Can we get a show of hands who is a homosexual here? Matt Sanchez 03:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

None of your business, Matt, but for the record: straight as an arrow. Durova^Charge! 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

</end moved comments>

I fail to see what anyone's sexual orientation, including your own, has to do with discussion here, which is about your conduct, not your political views. Into The Fray ^T/C 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, this is a real opportunity for you to hear how your actions are negatively impacting other people, many of whom genuinely want to see a decent article about your life and work presented. There are folks, like myself, who do not want to see you blocked from editing but instead want to see all the energy you put into this project actually be constructive to improving articles and helping all who look to wikipedia for information. Instead of retreating to a the homosexuals editors are out to get me position consider taking responsibility for your actions and accepting the consequences. Personally I hope you do decide to change your style of editing and use the unique world perspective that you have to edit on subjects you know well. Wikipedia is not meant to be a battle front but a collaborative effort, when battles and edit wars escalate sound reasoning and policies are the defense - not personal attacks. If anything our mutual war is against a lack of education. Benjiboi 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I stumbled on to this while perusing the RFC/u article. On what planet, does a person's political views give license to expose their sexual history. So he didn't think soldiers should be called baby killers. For that, you demand he be punished for not wanting you to rub his nose in his past for all the world to see. You think the exposure of Senator Craig, et al. because they are conservatives is something for a national ethic? The sheer evil of such an idea is staggering. Delete the man's article for God's sake. He's admitted his past. Allow him the dignity of not having to discuss it with everybody he meets. I doubt many Wikipedia readers will see the article unless like me they stumble across the RFC/u. But the man's friends and neighbors will like many of us in these times Google the people they know out of curiosity. The inclusion of such foolishness is for their benefit and for the punishment of a man who didn't want to be called a baby killer. Truth is not on your agenda. If this is what Wikipedia is about, you can have it!--JoeFriday ^(talk) 01:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of the article is to provide a factual biographical summary. "He's admitted his past" is exactly what is at issue. An accurate account of what has been reported about his past, and what he has said about his past, belongs in his biography, just as much as his current endeavors.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 00:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved view of Typing Monkey

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

<begin moved comments>

"Taking offense" is the least of my concerns. The editing board has been both neglectful and heinous. Worst of all they seem to have a foregone conclusion, which is in violation of the non-bias clause.

I've consistently left referenced information that no one has discussed, or even commented. Worldnetdaily and Beauchamp two national platforms were completely ignored by the editorial staff. Matt Sanchez 03:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that give you a reason to persistently make all those attacks? Of course not. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

<end moved comments>

[edit] Process, timeline?

Hi, I'm new to RfC's is there some overview I can read up of how the process works and expected timeframes? Benjiboi 10:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC. Durova^Charge! 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming the Adam Kokesh article

On Oct. 1 Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez added a link to his own web site to the Adam Kokesh article. He did this using his IP address 213.255.230.132 instead of his username. WHOIS traces this IP back to Iraq and Sanchez has replied to comments on his talk page using this IP, so it's definitely him. JMarkievicz2 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

I'll keep an open mind about the potential for sockpuppetry on all sides. Mainly I want to make it very clear that this site has standards, I've dealt with disruption many times before, and if it simply ceases I'm willing to let it go. When people try to game Wikipedia's processes they follow a very predictable learning curve (with equally predictable mistakes), so an I'll-just-try-this-next-trick approach tends to get caught and viewed very dimly. Much better to take the high road. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)