Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:00, 10 January 2008

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

Please accept this case. It is not a content dispute. This user (User:Bluemarine/User:Mattsanchez) has frequently violated WP:COI with his work on his own article, as seen here. 294 of his total 1535 edits are to Matt Sanchez, as recently as today, 5 January 2008. He may or may not have been endless baited by "homosexual" editors, as some have stated, but there no excuse for rampant homophobia and bigoted statements, which are forbidden under Misplaced Pages:NPA#Personal attacks. As I said on ANI, would this have been tolerated even 1/10th as long if he had complained about Blacks, Jews, or other groups editing his article? There is a Request For Comments on him located here. Please read that. There are currently multiple ANI threads related to this individual as of 5 January 2008 (permanent links, thank you Jehochman), here (longest and most detailed), here, and here. An older thread on this can be found here from January 2. More evidence of abusive bigotry can be found here. Lawrence Cohen 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium

I also would request that ArbCom consider this case, although my reasons differ from those of Allstarecho and Lawrence Cohen. It is apparent that both Sanchez and his detractors are at fault in this case; Sanchez's attitude towards other editors (particularly LGBT and left-of-center editors) is appalling, and needs to be addressed, but the repeated attempts to add BLP-violation material into his article (which, unfortunately, is coming from the same LGBT and left-of-center editors) despite dozens of warnings (spread out through the 11 pages of talk archives on a 10-month old article), the parade of single-purpose accounts attacking Sanchez, and repeated links to a site dedicated to destroying Sanchez personally (run by an indefinitely blocked editor, the site also specifically attacks two Misplaced Pages admins by name) are issues that need to be addressed as well.

Right now, there is an issue of undue weight, since a small group of editors stripped out almost all of the information that does not relate to Sanchez's porn career. This article is billed as a biography, but right now, it is little more than a retelling of a rather salacious story, nothing more. If it is a biography, some of the recently deleted material needs to be restored, or the article needs to be retitled and reorganized as "Matt Sanchez Controversy" or something similar.

Regardless of the disposition of this case, Sanchez needs to be topic-banned from editing his article or related articles (such as Scott Thomas Beauchamp), and some of his persistent detractors need to find other topics on Misplaced Pages as well; two of the editors listed as involved parties have fewer than 10% of their edits on Misplaced Pages on articles that do not relate to Sanchez.

Regarding Mr. Cohen's insinuation that there is an element of homophobia behind Sanchez's limited block history, it needs to be pointed out that one of the reasons Sanchez has been given some latitude is the libelous behavior exhibited by other editors on an article about him, which is quite different than ordinary, garden-variety personal attacks.

Regarding Allstarecho's assertion about the timeline, at the time that Sanchez requested an unblock (13:38, 5 January 2008), the article was at this revision, which is arguably libelous, and section 1.3 is the likely reason behind the OTRS lock. That section was repeatedly added by one editor, and repeatedly reverted by an administrator. It was removed two minutes later by another admin, but Sanchez had already made the legal threat, which needs to be retracted by Sanchez before this case can effectively proceed.

Horologium (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

Though I haven't edited the Matt Sanchez article recently, I was very involved with it in mid-2007, and worked very hard to try and come up with a consensus rewrite. I am disappointed to see that the article remains unstable, and do agree that ArbCom intervention is needed. The core of the dispute is that Matt Sanchez, a right-wing blogger/columnist, also has a well-documented history as an actor in gay pornographic films, which has led to multiple accusations against him being made in the blogosphere, some of which accusations, such as that he was also a prostitute, were publicized enough that they were picked up in major media. Sanchez himself has made some public but ambiguous statements about whether or not the allegations were true.

The wrangling over the Misplaced Pages article basically hinges on how much space should be given to the prostitution allegations, or whether they should be listed at all, per WP:BLP. Some editors believe that it is blatantly obvious that Sanchez was a prostitute, and that the article should include information about it. Others believe that this obviousness is only evident through connecting the dots in violation of WP:NOR, and the information should be minimized. Others believe that the prostitution allegations shouldn't be mentioned at all, per BLP. The situation is made further complex by the fact that Sanchez himself continues to try and edit the article, and generates personal attacks and homophobic slurs on the talkpage. Some of these attacks can be seen as understandable, considering the attacks that are being generated on Sanchez himself, both on- and off-wiki. Other comments and actions by Sanchez, in my opinion, have been far past anything that I could consider acceptable or justified. My own feeling is that ArbCom should implement a strict civility and revert parole on the article and its talkpage, with rapid blocks issued to anyone (including Sanchez) who resorts to personal attacks or edit-warring. --Elonka 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

This situation needs arbitration. I first noticed it three months ago when I responded to a content RFC and discovered that a user conduct RFC had also been running for a month. Formal dispute resolution has not helped this situation. Previous RFAR statements have already described Matt Sanchez's conduct; I make no excuse for it. I informed him of the legitimate ways to address BLP issues and offered mentorship. I even offered to nominate the article for deletion per WP:NOT#Not a battleground and WP:BLP. He preferred to continue the dispute. I can also affirm that he has been getting trolled by throwaway accounts of people who know a few things about Misplaced Pages. Here are a couple of examples of attacks to his userpage. I urge the committee to accept this request and examine the conduct of all parties. Durova 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Coredesat

The conduct of users on both sides of this issue has been appalling; per Durova's evidence, Sanchez has been trolled in the past, but Sanchez's own attitude toward resolving disputes on the article on him is quite incivil (with blatant personal attacks against various users). I had blocked him indefinitely earlier after noticing multiple threads on WP:ANI about his behavior (1, 2, 3), a failed RFC, numerous warnings, and a few blocks, including one for legal threats. I was hesitant to shorten the block at first, but after looking into the history of the situation and in light of recent WP:BLP violations that had been re-inserted into the article after Sanchez was blocked, I asked WJBscribe to reduce the block length to one week pending an arbitration case. I urge the Committee to accept this case to examine Sanchez's conduct, as well as that of others involved in the dispute (which went beyond a simple content dispute long ago). If this case is accepted before the block has expired, I have no problem with unblocking him so he can participate.

Note to clerks: Bluemarine is no longer indefinitely blocked; when I agreed to WJBscribe reducing Bluemarine's block length, I asked him to leave Mattsanchez blocked to avoid sockpuppet abuse. --Coredesat 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine at Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

I didn't see a place to post that Sanchez/Bluemarine's continual COI, self-promotion and use of socks on Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy should be given a hearing as well. I wish to avoid dealing with him direct so remain anonymous so do with this whatever you feel is correct. 71.139.2.52 (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Benjiboi

I believe the RfC has plenty of evidence and also suggest that those investigating consider reviewing both Matt's contributions as well as Bluemarine's. I've found almost all of his work to by overly POV and POINTY towards those he doesn't agree with. I used to think he could be a good resource and editor here but I doubt that now. I also share the concern that if he has a biography then there should be a way for him to correct any mistakes, however, his M.O. seems to be to remove anything unflattering and adding items which don't seem to be supported. I personally have taken breaks from that article in particular and wikipedia in general because I found Matt's attacks on me personally and against all editors who disagree with him (lumped together by him as homosexuals) as extremely uncivil and off-putting. I made a good faith effort to encourage Matt to cool off but that lasted all of a few hours until he would pepper the entire talk page with comments which, IMHO, seemed to be a concerted effort to distract and disperse any who didn't agree with his version, which seemed to be almost everyone. At the same time arguing against items he didn't agree with, often by also disparaging the contributors, which he had been warned repeatedly not to do, Matt would introduce blog listings or other dubious items that he felt should be included. In hindsight I wished I had seen the talk pages of Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy where the atmosphere was a bit less chaotic and no-nonsense. I feel like Matt played us all and did it well, now it's time for him to take a break. He should also accept that he had a career as a gay porn star and escort and even if he regrets it now, it helped propel him onto the national radar and (the revelation of his porn past) seems to be the height of his notoriety as of yet. I feel bad that Pwok or others may have attacked him for their own reasons related to his notoriety but disagree that that justifies him attacking others repeatedly after many warnings. I also don't think it justifies him gaming the system to stall his article being vetted and improved and I fully expect him, at this point, to roadblock in anyway the updating of his article to reflect wikipedia's standards. Quite a few editors have been extremely patient with Matt and I think that patience has worn too thin at this point. Someday he could potentially still be a great editor but for wikipedia's sake I hope he takes some time off and focus on his other writings. Benjiboi 05:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine has been unblocked

In order to allow Bluemarine to participate in this case, the account has been unblocked and strongly warned to refrain from editing any other pages at this time. If anybody notices the user editing outside the case pages, please leave a note either here or at Clerks Noticeboard and either myself or another clerk will take deal with it. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Wjhonson

Having been involved with this article for some time, I am not convinced that Matt Sanchez *can* become a neutral editor on his article or any. He is an extremely aggressive editor. I have felt for some time that he has been treated with kid gloves and I have no idea why. We certainly would not let Ann Coulter remove negative things from her own article and we shouldn't in this case either. Matt however is too involved to be able to leave it. He has demonstrated that a sufficient number of times already. So this issue is unlikely to go away unless he is indef-blocked. IMHO. Wjhonson (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that Matt has now responded on-page and states again that he is "going to upload the second interview". We heard that months ago, but it's irrelevant anyway. Just to refresh everyone on the details that his page *should* have contained (I admit I'm a bit anal) you can see my article "Matt Sanchez" on http://www.countyhistorian.com. Still the most popular page on my site, amazingly enough. Wjhonson (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment from Walton

I haven't been involved with this case at all, but looking at the diffs provided to show why Coredesat blocked Bluemarine, I don't see that any of them merited a block. This and this are expressions of opinion, not attacks. It would be inappropriate to attack other individual editors with anti-gay epithets; however, WP:NPA does not prohibit criticism of homosexuals as a group or of gay rights activism. Opposition to homosexual practices, or to the gay rights political agenda, are perfectly legitimate political standpoints, and I dislike the political correctness which prohibits any public criticism of homosexuality or of any minority group, while allowing (and indeed encouraging) criticism of the US government, Christianity, conservatism and the military. As I wasn't involved with the case and haven't fully reviewed the background to it, I wouldn't go so far as to state that the block was inappropriate; however, the stated reasons for the block are certainly inadequate. I can't escape the impression that Matt Sanchez has been an unfortunate victim of Misplaced Pages's inherent liberal bias.

While editing one's own article is discouraged under WP:COI, it is not prohibited, nor should it be. Indeed, I would say that the spirit (if not the letter) of BLP permits people to correct inaccurate or misleading information in articles about themselves. This demonstrates a bona fide concern with factual inaccuracies in the article. As I said, I do not know whether his editing has been tendentious enough to merit a block. But neither Allstarecho nor anyone else has presented evidence to that effect. The assertion that he is trying to whitewash his own past may be true, but again, it has not been backed up by any evidence.

I'm not criticising the blocking admin, and I also accept that when Sanchez made a legal threat, it was legitimate to block him per WP:NLT. I will, however, be conducting an independent review into this case and will be offering my considered opinion to the Committee, together with relevant evidence. Walton 12:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(Note concerning the above: Per my discussion with Lawrence Cohen below, and the evidence he has presented, I am satisfied that the block was not made for political reasons, and that there were legitimate grounds for treating Matt Sanchez's comments as violations of WP:NPA, since he has made comments attacking the sexuality of individual editors with whom he has been in conflict. I presently reserve judgment as to whether the block applied was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances.) Walton 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Walton's statement

Unfortunately, Walton misinterprets or accidentally has misrepresented why Sanchez was blocked by Coredesat. See this thread, where he actually says why he blocked him originally. I also specifically was the one that called his being indefinitely blocked, after I saw the horrible history (documented here) of hateful language this person was spewing on-wiki. Oppositional language such as this towards minority groups is strictly prohibited at any and all times on Misplaced Pages per:

• Misplaced Pages:NPA#Personal attacks

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not.

Sanchez is guilty of both. See my evidence section.

• Misplaced Pages:HARASS#Targeted personal attacks

• "Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter."

Emphasis mine on the harassment link. Per my evidence Sanchez has been making hateful comments for a year on Misplaced Pages. Walton says that "Opposition to homosexual practices" are "perfectly legitimate political standpoints", and I'll point out that so is Racial segregation based on some long running politicians like Strom Thurmond. As I said elsewhere, people are free to practice whatever hateful activities towards minorities they want--racism, bigotry, go burn a cross, I personally don't care--but repeatedly expressing that nonsense on Misplaced Pages towards a minority is unacceptable. As I also said, if Sanchez were making all these statements about another group besides homosexuals would this issue have even lasted this long? Had he been saying things like, "I won't let the Jews edit my article because of the kike agenda" or "I won't let the Mexicans edit my article because of their wetback agenda," instead of "I won't let the Gays edit my article because of their faggot agenda," would we even be debating this? He'd have been out the door on his butt ages ago.

Sanchez as I read it was blocked for an endless history of using hateful, bigoted and discriminatory language towards minorities. He doesn't need to hit one big NPA Violation Home Run in his Misplaced Pages game. The combined weight of his NPA singles has earned him what it has. Lawrence Cohen 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the diffs you presented on the Evidence page, I agree that some of those crossed the line into attacks on individual homosexual editors and thus were unacceptable under NPA, and accordingly I concur that the block issued was, in all the circumstances, probably justified (although I haven't yet had time to investigate the history of the case in full).

What I want to make clear here, though, is that expressing one's dislike of a particular political standpoint - in this case, gay rights activism - is not an NPA violation. Similarly, we should not block a Wikipedian who argued that racial segregation was a good idea, just because their views are outside the "acceptable" mainstream. However, we certainly would - and should - block a Wikipedian who attacked individual Jewish or ethnic minority editors with racist comments, and likewise I concur that it was appropriate to block Matt Sanchez (though probably not indefinitely) for making some of the comments you noted on the Evidence page, since he made disparaging comments about specific editors' sexuality.

Like I said, I'm not being critical of any of the admins involved in this case. I just think we should ensure that when we block people for NPA, it is for actual violations of NPA (i.e. direct attacks on other editors), not for expressing a viewpoint that the majority of Wikipedians dislike or find offensive (although as I said, I agree with you that many of the diffs on the Evidence page were undoubtedly violations of NPA). I also think, considering the gravity of this situation, and the fact that this case might well end up with a ban being imposed on Sanchez, that he should have the benefit of representation/advocacy from an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, to ensure that the ArbCom proceedings are fair and balanced, and I am happy to take on this role. I realise we don't have lawyers on Misplaced Pages, and I don't intend to defend him unconditionally, but I think that a balance of opinions is needed here. Walton 15:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all points and your offer sounds like a good idea, if he'd be wise enough to take it and the AC had no problem with it. I just wanted to make sure that everyone realized he was really banned for the whole history of abuse, not for political reasons. People can be as contrary as they like from socially responsible viewpoints and positions, just so long as they don't start attacking people or groups. Lawrence Cohen 16:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)