Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:44, 13 January 2008

proposals by user xyz

Just as a comment, I don't care for the layout of the proposals. Makes for lots of subheadings. and implies that everyone needs to propose a whole decision, when that is not the case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this format doesn't make it much easier to navigate the proposals. --Coredesat 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just went with what was there when I started. Is this a new way of doing it? Lawrence Cohen 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Its being tried out at the request of the Arbitrators. There's some relevant discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#Change to workshop page structure. WjBscribe 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, i guess we'll give it a shot....though i think the main limitation to the workshop pages is the arguementation that goes on that is often only tangentially related to the proposal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for proposal

I'm not sure how to best word it, but I'd like to see some sort of remedy that deals with the SPA situation. For example, we're getting single-purpose accounts who "participate" at the talkpage, and they're civil and all, but they're obviously agenda-driven, and it's impossible to negotiate with them towards a compromise, because, well, they don't compromise. I'm not sure how to word an effective remedy though. Just brainstorming: "Obvious SPA accounts do not need to be accommodated in talkpage discussions"? Or "Obvious SPA accounts who appear to be obstructing consensus decisions can be banned from the topic area"? How has this problem been dealt with in the past, where an account "parks" on Misplaced Pages for one purpose and one purpose only? They never edit war, they're never uncivil, but they never agree with anyone else either? --Elonka 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of those SPAs aren't civil. Durova 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"In article discussions, opinions of obvious SPAs may be devalued when establishing consensus." Is that the sort of wording you're after, Elonka? I don't know how it would fly. On the surface, having dealt with mind-numbing SPAs, I want to like it, but... Lawrence Cohen 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, obvious SPAs can still be welcome contributors, if they're reasonable individuals who are willing to work towards consensus. What I'm trying to find, is some sort of out that says that we can remove the really mule-headed ones from the equation. I'm all for trying hard to find a compromise, where all parties are willing to work towards compromise, even if some of the folks have strongly-held opinions. But sometimes someone comes into a discussion, and their attitude is, "The only possible compromise is to do it my way." And I'd like to see if we can come up with a creative solution that helps us to identify those "un-budgable" SPAs, so that we don't have to waste weeks of time trying to convince the unconvinceable.

For example, we've had some SPAs at the talkpage who are convinced that Sanchez was a prostitute. It doesn't matter how much we tell them about BLP, or WP:V, or WP:NOR, they're just convinced that the Misplaced Pages article has to include that information, and we can't seem to find a stable consensus version of the article, because the SPAs won't budge. In some ways, it's like we do need an authoritative "decision" on the article's content. If we had enough good-faith editors in the mix, the consensus would be obvious, and the SPA opinions would be minimized. The problem comes in where the SPAs are present in sufficient numbers, that it maintains a stalemate. Part of the problem also is that though we do have some good faith editors who are willing to participate in the discussion, they're not willing to make a full-time career of this one article. Whereas the SPAs aren't interested in anything else on Misplaced Pages, and so they can just park on the article until they exhaust the good faith editors, and then the SPAs start up the problems again.

(just brainstorming here) One possibility is that we set up a period of time that the article is under review, and we encourage all interested editors to come in and participate during that review period. So we come up with a stable version from that period, and then we Protect the article until the next review period. That keeps the POV-pushing SPAs at bay without exhausting the good-faith editors. Then again, that method is completely against the Misplaced Pages model of "open encyclopedia." So maybe there's some happy medium somewhere in the middle? I'm not sure. My gut says to come up with some mechanism where controversial changes to the article cannot be made unless there are enough good faith editors in the mix that say, "Okay," and then that limits the SPAs to the talkpage.

Another option: How about a proposal that says that SPA accounts are prevented from editing the article directly, though they're still allowed to participate at the talkpage? That way they can discuss what they want, but only experienced editors are allowed to make actual changes? --Elonka 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the escort detail vis a vis the BLP policy, I do not believe there is uniform opinion even among the editors. This entire SPA account discussion is a proxy for your and Horologium's belief that this is out of bounds due to BLP. You have a point, but so do those editors who believe the information should be included (provided Sanchez's later denials are also included.) So I do not agree with your attempt to create an 'SPA-class' editor here on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you could provide some standard for testing who's opinions will be discounted and which will not? Moreover, I think part of the issue has been the fact that you yourself have already done this in the past, discounting the opinions of editors who were operating in good faith and making a reasonable attempt to explain their point of view. For example, you once claimed that the Military Times, a Gannett newspaper with a total circ of ~300,000 wasn't a reliable source because an SPA referenced it. I've been accused of being an SPA by Horologium before and yet again as part of this RFAr, I think this is just a cop-out and Wiki-approved form of name-calling. Aatombomb (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the proposal. Its intent is to prevent otherwise civil SPAs from disrupting consensus building, not advance a content dispute on this particular article (there would be far more efficacious ways to do that...). The SPAs contributions would not be seen to be evidence of the opposite of their argument, as you fear, but rather lack of evidence for their argument. True, there are practical issues here which make implementing something problematic, which Elonka pointed out, (beans, anyone?), but this is anything but a copout. If anything, this type of issue should be revisited on many levels around the project. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have misunderstood. The original suggestion seems to be specific to the article in question. It has since expanded into a more general idea for a broader proposal. You are still discounting evidence merely because it's attached to an SPA. Also, what is an SPA? Where is the line drawn? Is it dichotomous? A continuum? When does an account emerge from SPA-dom into the realm of the glorious and reknowned? That being said, her later idea for an editorial rating system is probably a good one. Aatombomb (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, check out Waldorf education Rfar for one that delt with spa's that were mostly civil enough (there were exceptions), and where it seems to have mostly worked. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting, though it appears that the solution there was to single out a particular SPA and limit his behavior that way. What I'm looking for is a more general remedy that will deal with all such SPAs that pop in, without requiring an ArbCom case on each one. It's one of the problems with dealing with disruptive behavior on Misplaced Pages, is that there's a lot of bureaucracy involved in dealing with problematic users. A single SPA can come in and disrupt with a minimum of effort, and then it takes the "experienced" editors many hours of redtape in order to get the disruptive editor dealt with.

So, what I'm trying to help brainstorm here, is a kind of remedy that minimizes the damage caused by the disruptive editors, but also minimizes the time required by the good editors. I've seen many cases where disruptive editors are allowed to continue to disrupt for far too long, simply because the other good editors don't want to spend the hours needed to collate all the diffs and "make a case." Individually identifying the SPAs and restricting their editing privileges is definitely one solution, but it's time-consuming. Protecting the page is another solution, but limits the activities of the good-faith editors. I'm trying to find a solution that's somewhere in between those two extremes.

As an aside, I've been kicking around an idea about an editor rating system, where it's easy at a glance to tell the difference between new editors; longterm "good standing" editors; editors who are under specific sanctions; and editors who fall into the grey area in between. This proposal isn't ready for formal announcement yet, but if anyone wants to help with the wording, let me know.  :) --Elonka 17:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(still brainstorming) I still think we need some sort of remedy or statement of fact like "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". We can acknowledge that Sanchez's behavior has been a problem, but we should also acknowledge that Sanchez has been heavily provoked. He is not the only problem at the Matt Sanchez article. And we should avoid a "solution" where we block Sanchez, but still allow his provokers to continue to edit. That would be a very sad solution for us to adopt. --Elonka 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of a proposal that will result in progressively longer bans on him, and language in it supporting that making anti-gay comments is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages? That is my primary concern at this point: that he either stops doing that, or is made to stop doing that by force, since it's simply unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen 19:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that that's a partial solution, but that this case should be concerned not just with controlling Sanchez, but with also controlling those who have been provoking him and trying to use his biography as a soapbox. Yes, Sanchez's behavior has been a problem, but he's also been a victim. I'd rather that we didn't compound the injustices here, by blocking Sanchez and yet letting his attackers continue to run free. We've got plenty of proposals at this case about Sanchez's behavior. We also need some proposals to deal with the other disruptive editors at his biography. --Elonka 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We need more solid evidence in diffs, but I would happily support that, yes. At the least NPA probation for any others as well that someone can demonstrate with evidence was as bad as Matt was. Lawrence Cohen 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing too many details of this case, I think the principle of this proposal is fantastic. This type of SPA gaming behavior is frustrating to say the least, and really presents a long term threat to the project's integrity. That said, I am not sure what can be explicitly done: it is easy for a good faith editor to invoke the duck test when confronted with such a SPA, but it is also just as easy for another good faith editor (to say nothing about bad faith editors) to say wait, it's just a new user so no duck (especially if they sympathize with the argument so appear to see more credibility and good faith than might be due). Someone will have to make a call on these SPAs and expose themselves to flak and drama. And it certainly won't put to rest any cabal talk. But these types of subtle gaming issues are the major long-term threat to the project, without any doubt. The effort to come up with a solution here is well worth it, but will also be quite daunting, I predict. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the principle in general. It ought to be discussed at the guideline/policy level. Durova 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request by Bluemarine

FYI, Matt has asked to be unblocked again, to participate in this ArbCom. Second attempt, please review. Lawrence Cohen 22:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned at his talkpage, I would support an unblock. I think too often that we are assuming that because we've said something to Sanchez, that he must have (a) read it; and (b) understood it. But in actuality, I think that a lot of what is going on, on-wiki, is confusing him. He can't tell editors apart, he can't tell the difference between ArbCom and ANI, and on top of all that, he's getting a steady barrage of off-wiki harassment. In that kind of environment, it doesn't surprise me that he'd be confused, and occasionally lashing out at everyone indiscriminately. So I think we should listen to what he actually promises, instead of us making assumptions about what we think he does or doesn't understand. At the moment, he's given his word that he won't edit anything except the ArbCom case. That's one of the most promising signs we've gotten from him in a long time. I think we should accept him at his word, and give him a chance to defend himself. --Elonka 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned on his talk page as well, I think he should be given one more chance to contribute here, but only if he agrees to completely stop the homophobic nonsense in his posting. He can feel whatever he wants, but sharing that bile on here is not right. Lawrence Cohen 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• He has been unblocked per User talk:Bluemarine, again with the understanding not to edit anywhere else but his talk page and Arbcom pages. Will he play us again? -- ALLSTARecho 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He has played you again, and Misplaced Pages will do nothing about it because there is a cabal here that has decided to protect Matt Sanchez no matter what. In his case, none of the rules here mean anything. He is immune from them, because he has friends at the senior levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Block unblock block

Please review Bluemarine's contributions, he again edited pages outside of this case after being unblocked. Lawrence Cohen 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked above, "Will he play us again?". He did. And still hasn't been blocked for this second violation of the restrictions placed on his 2 previous unblocks. -- ALLSTARecho 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have made some rather civil comments to the article about him. I will warn him but I will not enforce a new block; also note that the last block before the case was filed was for a week and would have expired 02:44 Jan 13, so after that time he will be free from any unusual restrictions. Thatcher 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Disclosure

What backchannel communications have taken place between Elonka Dunin and Matt Sanchez? Has Dunin offered her support to Sanchez in these ArbComm proceeduings? What COI rules apply in such cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're requesting disclosures, please disclose your registered account. Durova 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What Misplaced Pages rule requires me to have a registered account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please list the IP addresses you have used, as well as any registered accounts. Durova 05:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance to this case, as Elonka is not a party to it. --Coredesat 05:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Sanchez, until I started working on the article in mid-2007. I've been in occasional IM and email communication with him since then, as I have with many other living people whose bios I have worked on. I do this for the purposes of fact-checking, getting image permission, learning about potential other sources, and, if/when the article subject expresses an interest in editing Misplaced Pages for themselves, I try to counsel them on Misplaced Pages policies and procedures, especially regarding WP:AUTO and WP:V (and in Sanchez's case, I have reminded him often about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). But Sanchez and I have no other personal or business relationship, so there's no COI. --Elonka 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are we asking IPs to disclose all their previous IPs for a question, pointed or not? That is innappropriate. Are we asking logged in editors what their sock accounts are? Lawrence Cohen 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the pernicious influence of IP-only, newly-registered, and single-purpose accounts on this whole topic, and the blatantly incivil, troll-like comments of the 69.76.37.158, it is actually quite reasonable to ask. This is an Arbitration, not a discussion forum. This behavior goes to the heart of the incivility to which Sanchez has been subjected, and in fact is far tamer than what he has endured elsewhere on the 'net. Horologium (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And I agree, but I agree also with the sentiment of the IP's insinuations that a weird double standard exists here, and I am troubled by it. We have reams of evidence of Sanchez's attacks on gays and gay editors, and hateful intolerance. We have on the evidence page almost no evidence of the reverse, beyond a tiny number of BLP violations. Where is the evidence? Would we even be tolerating this sort of nonsense if his statements were "I don't want niggers editing my article," or "I don't want kikes editing my article," instead of "I don't want faggots editing my article"? The history and seeming double standard of extra protections and tolerance and decency for BLP subjects who show none to others is distressing. I don't care who you are, what you do in real life, or how many BLP articles cover you. If you spout off bigoted hate and attack others by calling them faggot, nigger, or kike--and they are all on the same level of hate, in the context that Sanchez used--you get banned. Forever. Misplaced Pages has zero net benefit to have Sanchez around editing since he has indicated he will not stop attacking minorities. Lawrence Cohen 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I said i want disclosure. I, in no way, relate behavior linked to ideology to race. There is a correlations between the political activism of homosexual pro-LGBT people and their editing on the Matt Sanchez article. I also personally take offense with the simplistic portrayal of me as a homophobe. By becoming, once again, self-righteous, Lawrence Cohen is trying to pull the victim card by feigning some sort of moral superiority. The issue of sexuality in my article is incredibly pertinent. If I had done straight porn we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that someone like Cohen refuses to look beyond the identity politics gay victimhood stance is, again, typical and shows that he can't even recognize bias. It is perfectly valid to know where someone is coming from and the fact is that there are an inordinate amount of homosexuals flocking to edit the Matt Sanchez article. Does that mean they are biased? Not conclusively, but if I can't ask the question, we'll never know.

Also, several editors have written me personally. There's no need to single out one over the others.

Be advised PWOK is one of the commentators on this board. Matt Sanchez (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter to me if Elonka has had "off-Wiki" discussions with Bluemarine/Sanchez, seems to me she is trying to help someone who she feels has been misunderstood. I don't share her patience, but I understand her intent. Durova indicated s/he tried to be a neutral third party to Bluemarine/Sanchez and I see many offers of help and guidance on Sanchez's talk page, which are all good and which he has clearly ignored. The subject is a college graduate and a journalist, and should be expected to understand what is being said to him over and over with regard to how the process works. However, I agree with Lawrence about the double standard at issue - that Bluemarine/Sanchez's attacks would not be tolerated on Misplaced Pages were they directed towards any other minority group, which is definitely distressing. They go far beyond "criticism" of a "political movement" and are clearly mean and spiteful personal attacks. Also, Sanchez's assumption that everyone that finds fault with his behavior is a "gay jihadist" is simply untrue. You don't have to be gay to find his behavior repugnant. I also agree that the evidence of Sanchez's violations of policy and general incivility far outweigh that of any other current editor to the Sanchez article. Typing Monkey - 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, a thread above this got reverted as probable ban evasion by Pwok. Durova 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who are reviewing the article talkpage and saying that Sanchez's behavior is the worst, I would point out that many other comments have been deleted because they were worse than anything that Sanchez has been saying. There have also been blocks in the past (Durova's above comment is an example), plus Pwok went to the trouble of making a Misplaced Pages/Sanchez "hate site" which further criticizes Misplaced Pages, Sanchez, and the editors who were trying to get the article straightened out. As I understand it, Sanchez is continuing to get a steady stream of hate mail. I've gotten hate mail too, just for trying to work on the Sanchez article. Much of the furor, as I understand it, does come from what can most charitably be called "Gay activists". I think that "activist" is a better term than "jihadist", but the fact still remains that the behavior by these activists (or whatever other term that you choose to call them) has been and continues to be a problem in terms of stabilizing the article. At times, I've felt like I was trying to have a logical argument with a member of a religious cult. Or in other words, logic was completely ineffective.

To have any hope at longterm stability for the article, we need to find a solution that deals not just with Sanchez, but also with the other SPA accounts that are camping there. For example, any time I look at the article talkpage and see a strongly-worded comment, I find myself checking the contribs of that editor. It is not uncommon for me to see that that editor has been spending months on Misplaced Pages, but not working on anything else but the Sanchez topic, and that they're obviously hell-bent on a very particular agenda. They're not interested in a compromise, they just want to get the article to say what they think it should say. I find those editors very frustrating to work with, and I can imagine that for Sanchez, it's absolutely maddening, especially when he gets blocked and they don't. The agenda-pushing is a clear problem, and we're going to have to address it. To be clear: Blocking Sanchez will not address the issue of the SPAs. Further, I am extremely concerned that some of the SPAs are probably absolutely gloating that through this ArbCom case, they may have the possibility of completely removing Sanchez from any say in his own article. So I'd rather that we didn't play into that kind of game. Or in other words, if our goal is to stabilize the article, then instead of us first blocking the article's subject, and then trying to deal with the SPAs, I'd rather see a topic-ban on any comments from SPAs first, before we take the step of blocking Sanchez. --Elonka 02:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The gordian knot

To set things out as I see the matter, this case deals with three main issues:

• Conduct by Matt Sanchez.
• Conduct by short-lived single purpose accounts and IP addresses. This appears to correlate to offsite attacks against Matt Sanchez.
• One article that's a BLP powderkeg.

I've stated several times that I don't defend Matt Sanchez's conduct, and I mean it. His behavior has yet to diverge from quite a few other editors I've dealt with in the past who were on the trajectory to sitebanning. This was the kind of situation that usually needs arbitration so I waited for it to get here. Now the question is what to do. Durova 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal Request

I am requesting the article on Matt Sanchez be removed. It is my intention to follow this request with legal action. Thank you. Matt Sanchez (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)