This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motion by Wjhonson

1) This attempt at resolution is not going to work as long as certain editors continue the sort of personal attack seen here. It is imperative that we all refrain from attacking each other in this manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wjhonson is added to this case

2) Per this serious allegation, and this reply, moving to add Wjhonson's name to this case to examine these serious allegations:

Please note, both my bank accounts and my e-mail account security has been violated due to this article and as a direct result of editor Wjhonson. If there is some official procedure for requesting deletion, I need to have it sent to me. Do consider this a formal request. Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you could provide some evidence to back up your unsourced assertion, that would be great. As it is, it just sounds like another personal attack to me. I have nothing to do with your bank, nor your email provider. And as we can both prove, I've never even sent you an email. You know as well as anyone that you can submit an OTRS and you can discuss your case at ArbCom. Wjhonson (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would encourage Matt Sanchez to send any information which shows the direct involvement of another user in any harassment to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org where it will be treated in confidence. If the removal of personal identifying information is needed, please contact oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org with the permanent link to the revisions in question (this is also a confidential list). The committee will consider whether to add Wjhonson as a party based on information which is made available to it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information such as mothers' maiden names and exact dates of birth of living persons should not be emphasized on-wiki, except perhaps in the case of very well-known people, and certainly not when an article subject expressly requests that this information about him or her not be included. I do not presently see reason to believe, however, that publication of this information on-wiki caused real-life harm to the article subject in this instance, given that (for better or worse) it was equally available from other sources. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to Newyorkbrad's opinion. Durova^Charge! 10:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would note an amendment to Sams' statement above, that Matt's allegation is not about "harassment" as we've seen that particular word has been interpretated on-Wiki in a variety of interesting ways recently re this case. Rather Matt's allegation is that I have evidently revealed something about him, not already publicly available, which has directly compromised his email security and bank account. So the committee will, I trust, focus on that rather narrower statement. I believe it's quite possible he is refering to my discovery of his mother's maiden name, noted on my own website, unrelated to Wikipedia. If so I would note, that the mother's maiden name of *each person* born in California from 1940 to 1997 is already published, in a public database, freely accessible without subscription here, and stating their birth county, exact birthdate, mother's maiden name and fullname. The information is not private, it never has been, regardless of the misunderstanding some people might be under regarding it. Matt himself, has already published the fact of the city in which he was born and exactly when. Of course if he is referring to something else, I have no idea what. Regardless, my personsal off-Wikipedia research page, only brings together various public sources as anyone can clearly read for themselves. And it brings together *all* such sources on Matt, disregarding none of them, positive, negative or neutral. Other than some clean-up and a bit of linking or re-linking work, the page has been virtually untouched for many months, as anyone can clearly verify themselves.Wjhonson (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An outgoing link to pages that contain disclosures of personal information about a Wikipedian, that the editor in question had not disclosed voluntarily on Wikipedia, is an indef-blockable policy violation, no matter how well known that information already is elsewhere in the Internet. Please refactor and request oversight of any previous outgoing link of that type you may have posted. Durova^Charge! 02:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that there is no such policy protecting public information. There is nothing private in my article about Sanchez. Every fact is in the public domain. If you can find anything private in my article let me know and I'll delete it. Thank you for the advice about policy. I will give it the appropriate level of consideration. Meanwhile, I suggest you actually add such a statement to the appropriate policy talk page for consensus discussion. Make sure you cover public information, since that really is the main point. And send me a link so I can remember to participate. Wjhonson (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to Newyorkbrad's comments regarding this. Apparently he sees special circumstances. I've seen cases where a single outgoing link to a site that disclosed an editor's name resulted in an indefinite block. Even when information is publicly available elsewhere. Durova^Charge! 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you are overreacting to nothing. I have not yet seen any such case. It would be a great learning experience should you be able to find one and link to it. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the 27 February 2007 block on Ilena[1] and the relevant policy clause. That's the first that comes to mind, since it resembles your own somewhat: she located publicly available information, published it on her own website, and then linked to the page from Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. However you have made statements in your reply that are not in the evidence at all. The only thing we can see is that she was blocked and you shouldn't post personal information. So that doesn't resemble this situation at all. Do you have anything more on this case that we can all view?Wjhonson (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Durova comes when a BLP exists on a Wikipedian. In order to write a biography you *must* do research. We don't rely strictly on the person's own statements, so if we quote the New York Times which happens to mention that the person has a wife named Jean, that is in no way a violation of any of our policies. That is the standard way you create a biography. Consulting your sources and stringing together a set of statements. Perhaps you could write an essay on the collision between BLP and privacy concerns to make the situation a little more clear on Wikipedians who are also BLP's. I'm sure that would greatly help the project.Wjhonson (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent, ec)You're welcome to look into it in more detail yourself. I've been restoring historic war photographs for featured picture nomination and am leading a good article drive - really this case has drained far more time than I anticipated. I provided that link as a courtesy to you, and since your own edit note admits you were being snarky, it's really an imposition to expect more. And I hardly think a basic biography requires the publication of a living person's mother's maiden name. Since that's in such common use as a security item for financial institutions and elsewhere - and of so little use for any other purpose - common sense ought to apply. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion and disagree. In researching Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco, it was the very mention of his mother's maiden name that led to articles which tie him into some previously notable San Franciscans. Without that bit of information, that point of interest would have been missed. Posting details of a person's early life, including who their parents were is fundamental to a well-writen biography. I don't expect that however, to be common practice since it's sometimes difficult to find sources. Whether people use mother's maiden name as a security question is perhaps a red herring argument. We do not know if this is actually to what Matt's objecting. He has never defined what the problem is exactly. The only reason I said snarky in my edit was because I'd just found that word in an unrelated posting and thought it was funny. Nothing more or less. Wjhonson (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting original research however. Original means a creative action was involved, not a mechanical one. Researching *in* sources is never *original* research, it is source-based research. You should know this Durova, it's right in the policy. Perhaps we should make it a bit clearer. I'm sure those of us who monitor and wrote those policies would appreciate your input if you find they are not clear enough. Thanks for your comment. Wjhonson (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you looked for Mr. Sanchez's mother's maiden name in order to attempt to determine what notable San Franciscans he might be related to on the maternal side. Millions of people live in the San Francisco metropolitan area. Of course, no one has ever mistaken two unrelated Californians named "Sanchez" for relatives, so your own unvetted inquiries into the rest of his family tree couldn't possibly tread on the margins of WP:NOR. Durova^Charge! 07:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source-based research is never original research. You should familiarize yourself better with our policies. If you're unclear please come to the NOR talk page and we'll discuss it there. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed without prejudice to either side. This is serious stuff and deserves the attention of the Committee. The recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave_real-world_harassment instructs Wikipedia editors to report serious harassment to the Committee. Since Matt Sanchez has requested that this be submitted formally, I submit this on his behalf. I have had no contact with him outside Wikipedia and no information about whether either side is right. Durova^Charge! 07:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wjhonson has already added his name to this case without motion.[2] So (to amend the above), move to formalize it and consider these allegations in the case. Durova^Charge! 07:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Sanchez's response to Durova's request for evidence. I find it quite telling. Based on it -- and the majority of Sanchez's posts -- I would bet he's making up the entire "harassment" claim. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished. Burden of evidence is on him to substantiate his very serious claims. I guess we'll know from the Committee's reaction whether any actual evidence emerges. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tennessee Jed 4415 has posted what purport to be emails or G-chats between Sanchez and various Wikipedia editors, including Elonka. Only the subjects know they if they were accurate, but if they are, it appears his email account was indeed hacked. (The content has been oversighted.) Thatcher 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest that this be taken into account at the AFD underway for Matt Sanchez; it strongly argues for deletion and salting, since the harassment has gone far beyond anything even remotely acceptable. Horologium (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horologium, do not use this RFA as a platform for your campaign to delete Sanchez's article page, which has been voted down, overwhelmingly, by consensus. Your behavior in this affair long ago became tiresome. Now, it's just disruptive. --Eleemosynary (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thatcher, for your prompt attention to this very serious issue. Durova^Charge! 06:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's mentoring of bluemarine should also be taken into account. From the posting referred to above, the content of her advice was VERY inappropriate and she appears to have been executing checkuser requests for him. Aatombomb (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Elonka is not a checkuser, and if she forwarded any concerns to one of the checkusers it would be that person's responsibility to evaluate the request under the usual guidelines before deciding whether or not to run the check. Thatcher 06:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka is not a checkuser. There are 23 en.wikipedia checkusers, 2 office personnel, and 2 global checkusers. Elonka is not one of them. The list is here. Horologium (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the messages between her and Sanchez should be reviewed. The content was highly inappropriate. She should be added as a party to this RFAr as well. Aatombomb (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka has been very active on the subject's talk page. Agree that she should be added as a party to the case. I think Aatombomb and I should also be added as parties for the same reason.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 06:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see these "messages". Did Elonka offer anything to Sanchez that is out-of-bounds for admins to do, such as private information or special favors involving any sort of administrative action...? Vague accusations are no help and just baseless. What did she purportedly offer? Spit it out or don't make these alluding comments that lead to saliciousness. Lawrence Cohen 07:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be appropriate to pursue that line of inquiry, since we have no way of telling how much of the post was authentic or fake. One editor got worried that Elonka would run a checkuser on him, but she doesn't have that op. Durova^Charge! 08:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Durova. It would be possible for ArbCom to investigate whether it was authentic. Durova's statement glosses over part of the email exchange which imho had certain inferences made that were highly irregular. At any rate, ArbCom members *probably* have a way of reviewing oversighted excisions. I'm not really sure if they can or not. Otherwise, I suppose the entire exchange could be send to the Arbcom mailing list. That actually probably would have been a better way for Tennessee Jed to go, since all it does on here is inflame us. I need a drink.Wjhonson (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind the likelihood that this information - if it isn't completely fabricated - was very likely obtained through hacking. What's to stop him from faking content? Or faking headers? Durova^Charge! 10:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle that *we* really can't discuss it here, as normal editors can't even see oversighted excisions. So it would only be the few of us that saw it that could even discuss it obliquely. The content of the posting, however was so disturbing to me that I would certainly hope there would be some way for it to be investigated at some level. You saw my initial reaction I'm sure, which I shortly refactored. I do not know if there's a way ArbCom could include the information in private. I'm just suggesting they might. By the way I changed above where I said "Pwok" to "Tennesee Jed" as I have no knowledge whether this was or wasn't Pwok. I was assuming and I shouldn't do that. Bad me.Wjhonson (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, that sort of post is often doctored. Burden of proof lies with a person who makes a claim. So unless he somehow demonstrates that he obtained those claimed messages legitimately, and didn't alter them, then there isn't anything to refute. Durova^Charge! 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent). It would appear he could here. If someone gave him access as he implies, then he didn't do anything *illegal*, maybe unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs)

Motion by Aatombomb

Elonka should be added as a party. She has mentored Bluemarine and the nature of her communications with him should be reviewed. She has also contributed to the Matt Sanchez article and has commented extensively on this RFAr.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree with the proposal that Elonka is added to this case as a party. Her mentoring of Bluemarine, and her close connection with WJBScribe should be reviewed. There was no indication afaik that this undisclosed potential WP:COI issue existed.Wjhonson (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 06:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree. She should begin by weighing in here. --Eleemosynary (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka and Typing monkey should be added as parties

1) See Aatombomb's reasons above for addition of Elonka.

2) I opened the RfC on Bluemarine's behavior that led to this ArbCom case. We all should be added as parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have mentioned to a few of you that I've been deliberately avoiding the Sanchez article here for many months. So I hadn't realized that Typing monkey had become involved. So I agree now that he should be included here.Wjhonson (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Propose and agree. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm already a party though. Aatombomb (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are! Amended the motion.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 06:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban User:Bluemarine

1) Per this evidence that he has no interest in ongoing civility, participating in Wikipedia as a productive editor, or not attacking homosexuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong agree Enough is enough. -- ALLSTARecho 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I have to agree. I as is perhaps well-known, am a quite vocal free-speech advocate, but obviously everybody would like negative things out of their articles. We simply can't cater to people requesting hagiographies in the face of reliable sources which state the opposite. We've been more than fair to Sanchez in even allowing his counter-statements at all. We're not an autobiography resource. And he's presented no credible argument for treating him in a special way from any other BLP. Wjhonson (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be a temporary measure, and things like this aren't what the temporary measures section is for. --Coredesat 05:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree although it's difficult to post this in the aftermath of possible breaches against his privacy and personal security, this isn't someone who's lacking in education or life experience: he's a man in his thirties who is about to graduate from Columbia University. He hasn't slipped through the cracks either - experienced Wikipedians have done their best to help him adjust to site standards. I thank them for their efforts. It's been long enough and he hasn't adjusted. He could have improved the site's articles about the war, or the places he's been, or the courses he's studying. Instead he wrote about himself and directed Usenet-worthy rudeness at other people, whether or not the individuals had ever provoked him. If this weren't an open arbitration case his user space would probably be edit protected by now. The biography article is still a serious problem, but I don't see how his presence improves the mix. I'm still willing to retract this statement if he apologizes for his conduct and pledges to improve. I'd expect him to make good on that pledge if he offers it. Durova^Charge! 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent article probation on Matt Sanchez

2) Per Temporary Injunction #1, to ensure Matt is protected from attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong agree Enough is enough. -- ALLSTARecho 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree - The article as it stands is not a consensus (sans Sanchez). There are items that should go to RS talk and items that should go to BLP talk and I feel strongly that consensus *could* be reached on the form of the article, if we were allowed to proceed. I would note, that we have had, in the past, relative consensus on the majority of the article. Wjhonson (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose simply because permanent probation is not a temporary action. Should be proposed as a remedy. --Coredesat 05:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this case

3) After injunctions #1 and #2 are done. I don't think he wants to be here to work on Wikipedia, anymore.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong agree -- ALLSTARecho 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There are other behavioral issues to examine besides just his own. Durova^Charge! 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also disagree, the case is not only about Matt Sanchez, it is about the behavior of various others, as well. --Coredesat 05:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Hopefully ArbComm will also make some comment about the BLP issue and the inclusion of admitted-and-subsequently-denied comments by the subject of a page. EdChem (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, today, Sanchez has made yet again another legal threat and has again been indef blocked. Just more cause to quit wasting everyone's time with this.. total ban him now, remove him from this case, and move on to dealing with the Single Purpose Accounts and BLP issues. ALLSTARecho 14:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Bluemarine

Will you agree to stop attacking minorities or any personal attacks on anyone else, which includes not using any language that can be construed or seen as an epithet against a specific group? That includes calling people "faggots", "effete", "gay jihadists", and so on. Please let us know. Lawrence Cohen 04:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for definition of terms:

• Attack
• "Minority"
• "language that can be construed or seen as an epithet against a specific group

I will pledge to be civil, but even questioning has been construed as an attack on these pages. The inability to ask questions would be intolerable. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A review of my "violations" reveals:

I fail to see how any of these are violations are attacks. They're specific criticism and completely pertinent to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 January 2008

The issue Matt is called ad hominem, i.e. attacking the person, not their arguments. There's a difference in saying "Your *argument* is junk, versus saying *you* are junk". I think most of us see "faggots" as an attack on the person, not their argument. You could address the substance of the statements, instead of trying as well to debase the person stating those. *Whether* or not an editor is gay, has no bearing on the question of whether you acted in 49 gay porn films or not. The article is your biography, it is not a venue for name-calling all the editors with whom you disagree.Wjhonson (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed Principles

BLP and articles

1) WP:BLP applies to articles and Wikipedia pages at all times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:BLP the policy should be made *more* clear to address the issue, that in order to determine whether or not to include details, we *must* discuss them on the Talk page. That means all details which are cited from reliable sources. Many times in the past, certain details have been removed from Talk for alleged BLP violations which means that other editors are shielded from the actual evidence for or against a proposal. All postings to Talk should be allowed to be discussed *prior* to somebody swooping in to protect the *victim* or whatever, by deleting references to reliable sources.Wjhonson (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and editors

2) WP:BLP does not apply to editors, but WP:NPA and WP:HARASS do. Editors who happen to have articles on them are no different than other editors for policy application.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors who are also BLP subjects

3) All editors who are also subjects of articles are required to obey the exact same editorial and behavioral standards as non-BLP editors. Having an article about yourself gives you no additional rights or freedoms that other editors do not have.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a bit too broad-brush. It is true enough as far as editorial standards go, but in behaviour we would certainly be aim to be particularly understanding of a new user who finds themself the subject of an article. I would therefore be wary of adopting this finding with a bit of flexibility. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed, with reservations. When editing your own bio, I think you need to go to greater lengths to avoid the appearance of being tendentious.Aatombomb (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, maybe. We do allow the biographed the ability to make self-published statements. I would suppose the natural extension is that a person with an article on here could publish a blog and then post snippets of it all over their biography. That might fall under undue weight. I guess I'm on the fence on this one. Wjhonson (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy application to editors must be uniform

4) All policies on Wikipedia must be applied with uniformity to all editors, irregardless of who they are. If the contents or end result of any given edit(s) is unacceptable for one user to do, it is unacceptable for any user to do. If the contents or end result of any given edit(s) is sufficient to impose sanction on one user, those same sanctions will be applied to any editor that performs similar actions, no matter who they are.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. I was blocked for a 3RR violation (justifiably) early in this. Bluemarine made multiple reverts, but was never blocked for the same reason. This while situation could have been contained much earlier and with much less fuss if the administrators had avoided giving Bluemarine a pass on things like 3RR. It would also have given Bluemarine less of a notion that it was 'his' article and that he could do what he wanted with it. Aatombomb (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The natural extension is that Pwok is unbanned. I think we can all agree on exactly what provocation caused him to go ballistic, and his reaction was justified in my opinion. The intervention, by certain editors-with-power was entirely over-the-top, no attempt to reasonably apply policy. He was treated unfairly and the project would be much better with him. He is a known journalist and understands clearly what reliable sources are. The person(s) causing this reaction, and putting us all here, have suffered no repercussions for creating this mess, to my knowledge. No one should be protected. If Matt had not been treated so gingerly, none of this would have occured.Wjhonson (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Fair play. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree so far as who they are, but what about context? If Matt had behaved the same way without the baiting, then this would have been resolved at the community level long ago. What I would have liked to have seen was some principled defense by respectable editors on the opposite side of the issues - some He may be wrong, but vandalism to his user page is unaccepatable. I'll revert that myself because that crosses the line. If Matt's legitimate opposition had stepped in that way, and he still had the same conduct problems, then that would have simplified things a lot. I do not defend Matt's actions. Yet it simply isn't fair play to watch while someone is obviously being baited, then hold him uniquely responsible for taking the bait. That constitutes an implicit endorsement of dirty tricks, and I won't go there. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is based on the history that I've seen since I found the initial edit war and reported Matt for the anti-gay commentary to ANI. Weren't several admins actively watching his article's talk page and interacting there? Nothing was done to curb possible baiting until this blew up all over ANI? Lawrence Cohen 20:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in general, I'll add, I see no reason policy enforcement shouldn't always be uniform. Bending rules leads to problems if it's a constant thing--do it once, someone will expect it again. If the rules are badly formed that things break worse when they're applied uniformly, that's a problem with the rules themselves, then. We're all human, but if people see that policies aren't applied the same to everyone, and that some are exempt or on some sort of free pass, it leads to lots of ill will. Look at the Giano case currently going. One side feels the IRC leadership can do anything they want at will, policy be damned, the other side feels the people that write large numbers of FAs can do whatever they want, policy be damned. Enforce everything the same on everything, from a guy here 5 minutes to an admin here 5 years, and everyone knows where everyone stands. If a 5 minute guy says, "Fuck you, Lawrence, you fucking whatever, I'll own you etc" and can be blocked for 24 hours for that first NPA violation on me, then so can the person here 5 years that says the same thing. The idea here is that a policy violation IS a policy violation, and if anything, the 5 year person should know better! If Matt did it, if I did it, if you did it, if Allstar did it: same sanctions for the same crime. Fair play. Lawrence Cohen 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow my edits around this dispute before you assert that no action was taken to curb the baiting. And although my heart is with you, my head tells me this is highly gameable. When I look at the particular variety of baiting that throwaway accounts directed at him, I strongly suspect that these were not drive-by trolls but instead was one or more editors on the other side of the conflict doing some rather sophisticated and dirty good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry. I just don't know who. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't aimed at you, really, for the actions or lack of. It was more of, "If this is true, how did it slip through the cracks so far to where Matt was making nearly a year of these attacks either in retaliation or unprovoked, without someone being blocked or sanctioned?" Lawrence Cohen 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had been aware of the problem in its early stages I would have intervened more aggressively. By October it was clear that the lines had been drawn and the waters were muddy enough that arbitration appeared likely. I did my best to speak up for fair play and alert the involved parties of the likely consequence of continued disruptive behavior. Since it wasn't clear to me who on the other side was responsible for the attack socks, and basically it was just Matt speaking up for himself, the tools weren't particularly useful. I did initiate a couple of noticeboard threads asking for more eyes to watch the situation, but the threads I started didn't gain much attention. It certainly would have been helpful if more people had put their heads together on this one. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[indent reset] Disagree as worded. Per WP:BLP other editors should "...show leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material." Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, our policies are and, in my opinion, should be, designed to prevent disruption, not designed as a rigid framework to which every single behaviour is fit, without considering context. --Iamunknown 14:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If trolled, replying in kind is never acceptable

5) Follows directly from #4. If attacked, replying in kind is unacceptable. A personal attack is a personal attack, and an unacceptable edit is an acceptableunacceptable edit. Two wrongs never make a right. Replying in matching kind to a bannable offense is itself a bannable offense, for example.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I sometimes phrase this as "Incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It is a natural reaction if someone calls you a name, to call one back. The originator of the conflict should suffer the penalites, the responder less-so. I am not advocating a style which allows name-callers to get away, simply because they are provoked, but rather there should be a greater effort to *assist* victims of an initial name-calling attack, rather than treating them also as the same type of criminal. Wjhonson (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Fair play, hold everyone to the same standards. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. --Coredesat 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, though should probably read "an unacceptable edit is an unacceptable edit" Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed "unacceptable" Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that it is in our best interests to ban someone for replying in kind to trolling. That said, blocks are acceptable, especially if trolling is ongoing, or if the disruptive reply is ongoing. --Iamunknown 15:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'd like to see some discretionary leeway built into that regarding the escalation from warnings to blocks and the duration of blocks. What often happens in tough disputes is that one side is more sophisticated than the other at avoiding specifically blockable behavior while still being uncooperative; as I pointed out at the Waldorf Education case there's a kind of incivility that wears a tweed suit with elbow patches and perhaps smokes a pipe. I want to manage crude incivility without inadvertently rewarding the other kind. Durova^Charge! 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks or displays of bigoted/hateful speech unacceptable

6) Any comments posted by any editor to Wikipedia that any reasonable person may construe as bigotry, racism, or intolerance toward a group (regardless of minority by ethnicity, race, religion, sex, sexual inclinations/desires, or any other factors are at all times and places on Wikipedia unacceptable under Wikipedia:NPA#Personal attacks and Wikipedia:HARASS#Targeted personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

NPA and HARASS refer specifically to attacks against editors; as written, this would be a charter for our ultra-nationalist edit-warriors to attack anyone "intolerant" of their beliefs. Kirill 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Kirill, good point. I'll strike this as what seemed like a good idea in my head that went off target. Lawrence Cohen 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP subjects may not edit their own articles except to remove obvious vandalism or BLP violations

7) BLP subjects may not edit their own articles, unless they are removing obvious vandalism, or BLP violations. If another editor challenges the removal of a potential BLP violation by citing WP:COI, a wider review is needed for the community to decide if the material is a BLP violation. The subject does not have sole discretion on the matter but their concerns will be taken for consideration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I hope Lawrence that you bring this up on BLP. Personally I like it as a policy change. Wjhonson (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, autobiographical editing is discouraged but not prohibited. Even if this were a good idea, Arbcom does not make decisions that change policies. Thatcher 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Thatcher. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP subjects may be banned by the community

8) BLP subjects may lose their editing rights the same as any other user. If banned, they may not participate directly on Wikipedia. If they have concerns about their article, it must be addressed either via the Foundation or OTRS.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously true, and practiced on previous occasions. I don't see the need for a finding on this. Durova^Charge! 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of fact. --Coredesat 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP subject's concerns

9) Concerns from BLP subjects about their articles will be given some weight, but their wishes if contrary to the stated goal of building an encyclopedia will be judged by the community as it fits into Wikipedia's goals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. We can find a consensus on what is or isn't a reliable source, and what is or isn't undue weight and what we should quote or paraphrase. But "I didn't mean to say that on talk radio" isn't an argument for discrediting an otherwise reliable source on a BLP. Wjhonson (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. We should be aware of their concerns, but that doesn't trump our building of an encyclopedia of information that is already freely available about subjects from various sources. That is, is a BLP subject's desires for what is or isn't in the article does not comply with other concerns such as NPOV, V, RS, Weight, etc., ultimately their concerns may be of less value in the construction of the article. "Because I don't want that in Wikipedia" sorts of reasons aren't a valid BLP concern, especially if the material is already freely available and sourced and cited from multiple reliable sources. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

10) WP:COI applies to anyone who edits Wikipedia, no matter who they are.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't know, seems like a strange statement. So by promote your own interest, an editor could say that Matt linking to each of his 40 blogs seperately or whatever promotes his own interest? If that's the intent, I'd think your proposal that editors may not edit their own biography would suffice. The editors could then work out the weight issue. On the flip side, if a journalist, comes here and says look here's a link to where I've published some details of this story, is that a COI ? or are they an expert editor providing links to reliable sources? Wjhonson (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly worded. Could be read to say that everyone has (the same amount of) COI. Durova^Charge! 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll ask here but my question applies here the same as it does in my version below.. How is that poorly worded. Does not "WP:COI the policy" apply to everyone or do we just pick and choose who it applies to? Policy applies to everyone so saying "WP:COI applies to anyone who edits Wikipedia, no matter who they are" is in itself policy and worded correctly. -- ALLSTARecho 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI, strictly interpreted as proposed, conflicts with WP:BLP's guidance that other editors should be lenient with editors who are the subject of an article. Bluemarine has received extraordinary leniency. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have also been extraordinary BLP issues at work in his biography. I don't mean to justify Matt Sanchez's conduct in the slightest; I came to the situation fairly late in the conflict and basically tried to give it a fair shot at avoiding arbitration. Durova^Charge! 19:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT

11) Legal threats are not allowed. Issuing legal threats on or to Wikipedia is a blockable offense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously true. I see no need for a finding based on this. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only relevant in this case to the extent that the legal threats are a form of personal attack/incivility that is being addressed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

COI violations on Matt Sanchez

1) User:Mattsanchez, aka User:Bluemarine, aka the BLP subject of Matt Sanchez, has extensively edited his own article in violation of WP:COI. Evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Rules state very clearly that autobiographical edits are not violations. Matt Sanchez (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncomfortable with any finding (and indeed, with many of the opening statements) that seems to suggest that editing with a conflict of interest is a blockable or sanctionable offense. It is not. The COI policy points out that people who edit from a conflicted position may tend to act in ways that are disruptive or counterproductive, but an editor who behaves himself and follows the rules is not sanctioned merely for editing his own bio. Thatcher 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is COI the wrong guideline to cite? Is Wikipedia:Autobiography more appropriate? My understanding was that BLP subjects were not supposed to edit their own articles except to correct obvious vandalism, BLP violations, or simple factual errors (with appropriate sourcing of course). Lawrence Cohen 17:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a common misconception. Neither the COI nor AUTO forbids you from writing about yourself or your enterprises, although they both strongly caution against it. Thatcher 17:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine made extensive bigoted attacks

2) User:Mattsanchez, aka User:Bluemarine, aka the BLP subject of Matt Sanchez, in apparent response to what he perceived as "gay" editing of his article, made extensive personal derogatory and hateful/discriminatory attacks on homosexuals over a long period of time. Evidence. In response, an RFC was filed. Bluemarine did not respond to it on the RFC. After the RFC and community admonishment, Bluemarine kept on attacking homosexuals for just as long. Evidence. More evidence from after start of this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. As per the evidence I and others have presented. Aatombomb (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This evidence is entirely subjective. Describing an editor as an "effete" or "cowardly" is not bigoted. I also stand by this statement: 03/26/07 middle-aged, White homosexual who has declared Jihad on me. mostly because it has proven to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these comments are generally pertinent to the edited article. Matt Sanchez (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ad Hominem attacks should not be excusable. I would note that many if not most of these attacks were to other editors arguments, not to attacks on Matt's person. That is, Matt was the instigator of the personal attacks, in response to what he perceived as being arguments that went against his position.Wjhonson (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine received multiple final warnings

3) See the talk archives on Bluemarine. There were at least four to five such warnings issued by a variety of users. Additional warnings were issued.[17][18]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. I have presented evidence to this effect. Aatombomb (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 21:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine may have been trolled

4) Bluemarine may have been seen to have been baited by other editors.Evidence 1, and Evidence 2.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed, Bluemarine was trolled. However, it is likely that some of the trolling was posted by allies of the subject. Aatombomb (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aatom has been a consistent troller, but that is irrelevant. He/she can say what he wishes, my principal issue is with his overwhelming bias. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence from the Radio program of Alan Colmes is well-sourced and substantiated. That it is poorly-sourced has no basis in fact. There is no evidence that the Alan Colmes show is not a reliable source. And it was in fact, an interview, with Matt Sanchez, where he made the very remarks that are the background to Evidence 1 above. This has been a constant issue with this article. I continue to insist that a person's own Audio recordings broadcast over nationally-syndicated radio can be cited and quoted. I fail to see any position, retaining our integrity, where we could deny that. In fact, it is quite possible that were ArbCom to find on this very issue, the rest of the contention would vanish overnight. Heading off a foreseen counter-argument, the fact that this particular link is posted to a site with "blog" in its name is not relevant. It is in fact, part of a recording of a Radio program where Matt was interviewed. He himself states this on his own blog, there is no question he was there, and he said it. The only remaining question is, are we going to ignore it and block it? Wjhonson (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Horologium's evidence. --Coredesat 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However this does not excuse Bluemarine's behavior. I do not think the severity of trolling in Bluemarine's direction in any way matches the severity and frequency of baiting done by Bluemarine himself. I also do not think the major editors of the article are guilty of baiting (other than Bluemarine), it is mostly done by single purpose accounts, per Horologium's evidence.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine responded in more than kind to possible trolling

5) Based on the evidence, if Bluemarine was trolled, he more than responded in kind over an extended period of constant NPA/Harassment violations towards homosexual editors of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed, with an edit. The attacks were not just on editors who identify as homosexual. Aatombomb (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine's misbehavior extended to other articles

6) Based on evidence, Bluemarine has had similar behavioral challenges at Talk:Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy, a media topic in which he is a major player as Matt Sanchez.Evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. The self-promoting edits to the article and the tone on the talk page were very similar. Aatombomb (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Not sure why Aatom is a party here. I have not "self-promoted" and find the charge ridiculous. As an actual participant, I bring a certain hands on expertise. I submitted my edits and references to the editors just like anywhere else. It's a market place of free ideas. I also cited and sourced all of my entries as per the regulations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 January 2008

No comment, I know nothing of this part of the Case. Wjhonson (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Matt Sanchez issued legal threats

7) On two occasions, the subject of Matt Sanchez as a Wikipedia editor has issued legal threats in violation of WP:NLT. Evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. I would call it three occasions. Why does the object of the legal threat have to be Wikipedia? Why is this an acceptable podium for any legal threats at all? With regard to Durova's comment, the subject has a history of adjusting inflammatory statements after the fact, claiming that he meant something other than what he said. Aatombomb (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again if Aatom is supposed to be a party who does he represent? Aatom seems to want to insert himself. The legal "threat" was actually an action against [[MSNBC[[ and the Huffington Post. Those parties complied by removing materials they aired. The legal actions against those parties are currently in discussion. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One legal threat, not two. On the first occasion his statement was that he intended to sue the news source. It just wasn't clear from his wording which he intended. I can't see any violation of WP:NLT in that, so as soon as he clarified I unblocked both accounts. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There was at least one earlier threat as well #[19], though nothing was done about it as far as I know.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article probation

1) Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, as Bluemarine's main focus and challenge, are on indefinite article probation. Anyone adding material that a reasonable person interprets as a BLP violation will be immediately blocked 24 hours, with the duration doubling for each subsequent violation. Anyone making personal or derogatory attacks towards groups or individuals will be immediately blocked 24 hours, with the duration doubling for each subsequent violation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not too keen on this one as written. Who and what defines "a reasonable person"? And should it really be left to interpretation to under the guise of that reasonable person definition? I'd be more willing to accept this if an alleged BLP violation occurs, and it's removed by an admin, and then restored by the offending user, then the offending user blocked for 24 hours, doubling with each reoccurring offense. Because, we do have policy on WP in terms of edit warring, 3RR, etc. and because not everyone who will come along and edit Matt Sanchez will be aware of drama that has taken place in this article. A new, or old, user who had no idea there was any issues may come along and in good faith try and add something they believe is reliably sourced but in which certain admins or other editors including Bluemarine may interpret as having violated BLP. Should they be subject to an automatic block or a stern notice of what's been going on and only warning not to do it again? -- ALLSTARecho 18:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that my contributing to the Beauchamp article is a violation of BLP? Doesn't that, in itself, advocate for my inclusion in the article? Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this one doesn't make any sense. Someone adding material to an editable article can be blocked if someone else decides something is a BLP offense? I've already had two admins warn me on what I consider spurious charges simply because we were *discussing* issues on the Talk page and some editors were not up-to-speed on the background of the case. We *must* be able to discuss the case on the case talk page, that is truly imperative. No one is served by a cone-of-silence. If ArbCom decides to freeze the article and it's talk page permanently, that should allow NO ONE to edit it period. Than no one would have the possiblity of getting blocked in the first place. If it's editable, we cannot impose secret restrictions and then execute them with a sledgehammer.Wjhonson (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, as noted by Allstarecho. Much of the disagreement here has been centered over whether a certain issue is a BLP violation or not. We have reasonable editors on both sides of the issue, so this does not appear to be a workable solution. Horologium (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Allstarecho and Horologium about this. This could easily be unfairly punitive to editors who make good faith contributions that some interpret as violating BLP but others do not. Aleta (Sing) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart, another article that was similarly targeted by hostile SPAs, and the remedies there. Thatcher 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine blocked one year for persistent personal attacks and displays of intolerance

2) For his ongoing comments that served to attack and disparage minority groups.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. Far too harsh. Horologium (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC) (Changed to weak opposition after Bluemarine's violation of unblock conditions.) (Struck entirely after Sanchez's series of edits on 13 January 2008) Horologium (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No longer opposed to banning, as opposed to a long-term block. Horologium (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my statement under temporary injunctions. Durova^Charge! 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine blocked six months for persistent personal attacks and displays of intolerance

3) For his ongoing comments that served to attack and disparage minority groups.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too harsh. See comment for next proposed remedy. Horologium (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Striking comment after Bluemarine's violation of unblock conditions. Horologium (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine blocked 90 days for persistent personal attacks and displays of intolerance

4) For his ongoing comments that served to attack and disparage minority groups.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this is a bit too long, but I can accept this duration. 60 days might be a more appropriate length, but I won't add another proposed remedy. Horologium (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Striking comment after Bluemarine's violation of unblock conditions. Horologium (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given his year of attacking homosexuals with epithets, why is a 90 day ban too long? Lawrence Cohen 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A 90 day block is reasonable. His personal attacks have been particularly hateful and vicious, and have been going on persistently for nearly ten months. If he spoke of any other minority group with such venom on a regular basis it would not have been tolerated.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should clearly state its advocacy of homosexuals as a protected minority. The comments I have made about homosexuals editing the article fit perfectly into the context of the article itself. If you're going to "ban criticism" of the homosexual community, you'll eliminate a point of view of the significans of the article itself. It was the political homosexual community that made me an issue and it is still the political homosexual agenda that continues to make me an issue. To ignore that is inherently biased. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your perception is accurate Matt. My own personal agenda is only at writing a balanced biography. You made yourself a public person and I was particularly interested in filling in the gaps in your history. I have no particular agenda to out you, I really couldn't care in general. But I think we can all admit that there are certain *notable* periods of your life, about which you don't really talk. We cannot, in complete honesty, create you as a new man suddenly appearing in 2005 or whatever it was. Either you're known for a single event, or you're linked to a series of events. I'm reminded of a similar article about Timothy J. Boham who was a porn star who later killed someone. The entire sequence of events is now chronicled in his article. He *as well* although not as well sourced, has an allegation of prostitution. You are not unique in that field. You might be more unique for having admitted it on Alan Colmes. That perhaps would make it even more notable in your case than not. The sources for your article are incredibly strict compared to the typical BLP I've worked on. No one is suggesting banning criticism. You criticize a person's position, their attitute, their opinion. When you start calling people gay or other names, using that as an argument weapon, that's not an opinion of theirs.Wjhonson (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine (and related accounts) are on personal attack probation for one year

5) Any personal attacks towards individuals or groups that are vioalations of WP:NPA or WP:HARASS will result in an immediate 24 hour block, with the duration doubling for each subsequent violation. The probation will begin after any enforced block ends.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Why does it seem like everyone else is on "trial" here except Bluemarine/Mattsanchez, as was pointed out below? Not just on this page but all over the various pages of this case. I agree with this proposal. -- ALLSTARecho 22:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration process examines the behavior of all involved editors. Aatombomb (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but not just Sanchez, but all parties to this RFAr. Horologium (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what is your justification for making that broad a sanction? Aatombomb (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? And why would the admins who are parties only for trying to be peacekeepers on probation? Lawrence Cohen 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are not the subject of this arbitration request. If Horologium feels this is necessary for other editors he should start the dispute process on an individual basis with those editors he has in mind. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting two of the arbitrators authorizing this case (here): "Accept to review the behaviour of all parties" (User:Thebainer) and "As usual, the behavior of all involved editors will be examined" (User:FloNight). Additionally, two of the parties to this arbitration have been blocked for 3RR/BLP violations on this article (neither of whom is named Bluemarine), which seems to indicate that restricting the probation to just one editor is misplaced. Horologium (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which other editors besides Bluemarine/Mattsanchez have a history of attacks demonstrated in the Evidence page? Lawrence Cohen 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the sections I added to my evidence, regarding Aatombomb and AllStarEcho. All three BLP violation edit wars resulted in full page protection for the article, and two resulted in blocks (although AllStarEcho's was lifted after a relatively short period). Horologium (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to bluemarine as 'pathetic' here [20] I also likened him to 'a disease' and referred to him as a 'loser' on another user's talk page: [21]. I was warned about personal attacks and I have heeded the warnings. Aatombomb (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, I was blocked by WJBscribe but unblocked once he learned all of the facts. I was not edit warring. I put in reliably sourced content. An admin removed it. I put it back with an edit summary of "With all due respect, it's reliably sourced". Aleta, who is not an admin, removed it. Then we took it to discussion in 2 different places as I have already shown in several places throughout this Arbcom case. I haven't attacked Sanchez nor have I done anything else in relation to this circus. -- ALLSTARecho 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal for Bluemarine only due to a history of violation and the severity of the problem. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluemarine (and related accounts) are on WP:COI probation for one year

6) Any edits by the article subject Matt Sanchez under any account/Wikipedia username, except to remove clear vandalism or obvious BLP violations will result in an immediate 24 hour block, with the duration doubling for each subsequent violation. The probation will begin after any enforced block ends.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree and agree that BLP should be removed from this proposal. BLP issues can be handled by other editors with consensus. Wjhonson (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it would be better not to cite BLP here, which does not prohibit such editing. If Bluemarine has edited the article disruptively, an article ban would be conventional, with or without a talk page exemption depending on the situation. But the citation of BLP is not really relevant. Thatcher 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

===Proposed Principles===

Comment by others:

• Removing myself from this case. See my statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Statement by Allstarecho. ALLSTARecho 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

I think resolution of these issues would help settle a great deal of contention among many of the editors who have contributed to the article, not just Bluemarine.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of unflattering information about the subject of an article, if properly sourced, is not a violation of WP:BLP.

1) Per WP:BLP, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Often true, but not always, and sometimes a matter requiring very sensitive editorial discretion. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strongly agree -- ALLSTARecho 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - And I also agree with the assessment that his admission of past prostitution is really, at the bottom, the main issue in this entire article history. And I agree that it's been sourced from reliable sources. Oh and I agree that information sourced from reliable sources, even if unflattering, can be included in a BLP, recognizing the value of notability and Undue Weight as well. Wjhonson (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed and agree. One of the major conflicts on the Sanchez article is whether or not Sanchez's own past admissions of prostitution are inappropriate for inclusion in the article. There are at least three sources for this information: Sanchez's interview with Alan Colmes broadcast on March 8, 2007; this article in The Military Times in March, 2007 which reports the admission made in the Colmes program; and Sanchez's own article in Salon Magazine, in which Sanchez states "he won't deny" that he has worked as a prostitute. Though unflattering, this information was documented in reliable third-party sources and is suitable for inclusion. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of unflattering information about the subject of an article is not necessarily "undue weight" under WP:BLP.

1) WP:BLP's "undue weight" guideline states: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted...cover the event, not the person." Unflattering information about an individual is not necessarily "undue weight" in a biography of a living person as long as it is not the sole subject of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree -- ALLSTARecho 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the admission, as I've stated above is a notable event. It is certainly not every day that a person known from other events, well sourced in his article, also admits to having previously been a prostitute. Wjhonson (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed and agree. The other most frequently cited justification for preventing the inclusion of the prostitution admission is that its inclusion at all would be giving "undue weight" to the topic. This is only one of several (proposed) sections of the biography and would not be the only topic. Given that few people had heard of Sanchez prior to the controversy about his past career in the sex industry being brought to light, Sanchez's admission of prostitution is a significant fact of his public life that should be included in his biography. His later retractions of the admission should also be included if they are properly sourced (not simply denials by the subject on the article's discussion page). Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with the subject of an article which have been published or broadcast in otherwise reliable sources are not "primary sources" under WP:BLP.

1) In its discussion of "primary sources," WP:BLP states, "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details--such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses--or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents...". An interview that was nationally published or broadcast in an otherwise acceptable source is not a "primary source" under these guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree -- ALLSTARecho 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed and agree. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Remedies

Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts

1) For a period of 30 days, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Matt Sanchez article. Any single-purpose account which performs such a revert may be kindly informed of this restriction and given the opportunity either to lay out their concerns on the article's discussion page or to e-mail the volunteers who deal with requests from article subjects. Any editor so informed who continues to revert the article may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed and agree. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: