Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 1

creation of the quote page
I've seen this quote in several places, it was taken from the salon article.Bluemarine 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note: The above comment was added by Matt Sanchez himself. He appears to be self-publicizing. --Slivowitz 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of self-promotional quotes Sanchez placed here
I've sent this page for VFD, and I've also removed quotes Sanchez posted here (as "Bluemarine") from his own blog. I've retained quotes that are sourced to third-party publications (but not blogs). --Slivowitz 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense. A blog is a reliable source about the author of the blog.  If, as is claimed, Bluemarine is himself Matt Sanchez, how can he not know if he himself said these things?--Yehudi 07:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue. The issue is... Sanchez himself has been filling this page up with quotes from his blog, in an attempt to effect self-promotion.  WQ is not a platform for self-promotion.  Sanchez's blog barely averages over 100 hits per month. and no mainstream publication has referenced those quotes.  No reasonable argument has been made for their inclusion. --Slivowitz 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Slivowitz here. The trade-off we offer self-editors for our laxer conflict-of-interest practice is that they scrupulously avoid self-promotion. Unless and until we get some independent evidence that the blog quotes are verifiably his and more widely reported, he should not be adding them himself, and others are justified in removing them. And I have yet to see any evidence from independent, reliable sources provided that ties Matt Sanchez to the Right Wing News blog. Yes, it seems very likely this is the case, but the threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Part of confirming true notability (as opposed to fleeting Warholian fame) is that the subject has reliable sources confirming the assessment of the less reliable material. Otherwise it's nothing but taking advantage of one's 15 minutes of fame to boost that fame. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Bluemarine Matt Sanchez or not? If he is then he knows if the quotes are his. If he isn't then there is no self-promotion problem. I also suggest that Slivowitz should cease editing this article until he has proved who he is and what his relationship is with Sanchez, so we know what his CoI is.--Cato 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cato, that makes no sense. Bluemarine is Sanchez.  Head over to Wikipedia for his extensive history editing as Bluemarine.  You can see the same thing on Commons.  I have no relatonship with Sanchez, and no COI.  Many editors have spent a lot of time on WP making sure Sanchez doesn't turn his articles into self-promotion.  Constantly reverting the article to its chock-full-of-blog-posts state, as you're doing, is not helping the page.  And your admonition that I cease editing the article is insulting. --Slivowitz 18:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * More on Matt Sanchez editing (and his ban) as Bluemarine is here --Slivowitz 18:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we don't like edit wars here, and certainly not during a VfD. And can everyone please avoid personal attacks.-- Poetlister 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While we often edit articles that are under VfD to attempt to improve them, I agree with Poetlister that edit wars during a VfD are counterproductive. We'll resolve this in a few days, one way or another, so I support a freeze on editing for now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Back to the main question, there are two separate issues here: verifiability of authorship, and identifying Bluemarine as Sanchez. The first affects whether we can treat a source like Right Wing News as sufficiently reliable. RWN is operated by John Hawkins, who says he is his "an independent operator running a blog". This alone disqualifies it as a reliable source for anything but material published by Right Wing News, and does not provide any verification of authorship. Hawkins has no editorial board or apparent professional reputation to back up claims of authorship. (We don't really even know if "John Hawkins" is his real name.) That's the problem with web publishing, and it can only be countered by becoming part of a trust web of professional publications. At the very least, we would need an inarguably reliable source to say something like "Sanchez, writing from his column in Right Wing News, says…" before we could consider including this material. But realize that the community doesn't have to accept this tenuous form of verification, especially given our growing emphasis on unquestionably reliable sources like print and well-known, well-documented websites.


 * The question of Bluemarine's identification as Sanchez, on the other hand, is not a content issue and is therefore not required to pass these more stringent tests of verifiability. I don't think there's any real debate about Bluemarine's identity, and it only increases our need to be sure he isn't violating even our informal COI restrictions. But Wikimedians accepting that Bluemarine is Sanchez does not transitively mean that we should accept Bluemarine's assertions about himself, including authorship that may seem self-evident. We can no more do that than we can use our own personal testimony to back up factual claims on Wikipedia. The distinction between working with users and working with content must be made clear. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Slivowitz is claiming that certain quotes should not be here and is removing them. He has no consensus for doing this. Can he please explain his reasoning.--Cato 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Quotes Sanchez has placed here, as "Bluemarine," from his own blog, and other blogs, do not rise the level of notability, but are self-promotion.  That's why they should be deleted.  Can you explain why you want Sanchez's self-promotion retained? --Slivowitz 07:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on the person seeking to make changes to obtain consensus. Clearly, Slivowitz has no consensus. As he seems fond of pointing out that people are banned on other wikis, it would be helpful if he could ay what name she himself uses elsewhere.--Yehudi 20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't have any names "elsewhere," and your bad faith presumption is telling. No "consensus" has been establish to retain quotes Sanchez placed here himself.  If you'd like to gain consensus to include Sanchez's self-promotion, feel free.  Otherwise, please remember that Wikiquote is not an extension of Sanchez's blog. --Slivowitz 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I must respectfully disagree with Cato and Yehudi's portraying Slivowitz's edits as changes that require consensus. This article, like all our articles, is not fixed in stone, such that any changes from an arbitrarily chosen state must have some kind of majority vote. (Even copyvio-problem articles like Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War have continuing struggles with reasonable states.) Editors are free to add or delete quotes as they see fit, preferably with edit summaries that explain the change if potentially controversial (as Slivowitz has done). Simply reverting the edits and claiming the lack of consensus is not what I would consider discussing a content dispute.


 * I believe Slivowitz has made his case sufficiently for removing the quotes as self-promotion. Yehudi has claimed that blogs are reliable sources for quotes from bloggers, although this does not address my point that we as yet have no reliable tie between the blog and Matt Sanchez. Cato appears to be echoing Yehudi's faith in authorship claims, and accepting blogs as reliable sources for quotes. I have pointed out some of the problems with these assumptions and of the unique challenges of avoiding conflict of interest at Wikiquote. I will now attempt to adddress these issues.


 * Reliable sourcing: Salon.com's The Fix column on 12 March 2007, under the heading "Talkers", said "Meanwhile, on his own blog, Sanchez seems to be…", the link pointing to a website titled "Matt Sanchez War Blog". The profile link for that blog gives a link to "My Web Page", which is at matt-sanchez.com. So we would seem to have a chain of evidence confirming Sanchez's authorship of both the war blog and his general blog. (This would probably be treated as too much original research to be acceptable on Wikipedia, but this is one area where Wikiquote may be more accepting.)


 * Conflict of interest: I seem to recall advocating our informal practice of allowing editors to contribute their own quotes, perhaps back in 2006, during a discussion about a notable mathematics professor. (If I can find more time, I'll try to provide a link to that discussion.) I believe we decided in favor of keeping the material because the quotes came from books and/or print magazines that quoted him, not from the quotee citing his own writings. The difference is that others chose the words they found memorable, and he was merely citing their quoting of him. I would argue very strongly against allowing someone to decide what self-published words of theirs are quoteworthy, just as Wikipedia does not allow article subjects to add material not vetted as useful and appropriate by independent sources.


 * With those points in mind, I believe we can assert that quotes from Sanchez's war blog and website are indeed words he wrote, but we should not feel compelled to keep material that he himself (as Bluemarine) added to this article. Although I personally find some of his selected quotes interesting, I think this one:
 * "It's my opinion and EVERYONE is entitled to it."
 * amply demonstrates why people shouldn't select their own quotes.


 * I would highly recommend that the editors of this article (Bluemarine excepted for COI concerns, although I'm happy to see he has voluntarily avoided further editing) should discuss in good faith which, if any, of the quotes from Sanchez's various writings should be included. (I leave verification of authorship for the other publications, like Right Wing News, as exercises for the editors who wish to keep quotes from sources of as-yet-unproven reliability.) I would also recommend that editors who wish to quote Sanchez should not feel compelled to start with Sanchez's own selection of his quotes, but should consider looking for other statements, perhaps in more reliable, independent publications, as evidence of more widespread belief in their quoteworthiness. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Slivowitz: I have reliable information that you indeed have or had an account on WP. For the present, I do not think it appropriate to reveal the name. I am not clear why you are denying this, but it is quite wrong to accuse another editor of bad faith.--Cato 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I deeply respect your analysis. I am not saying that we need to keep every quote here, and when things are calmer I shall certainly weed the article. However, it is not appropriate to delete a large swathe simply on the grounds that they are from blogs. At best, it may be appropriate to mark them as unsourced with a note that they may be sourced but we can't be sure.--Yehudi 06:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Blogs as sources are similar to Usenet posts, in that while the content is reliable, the putative authorship is not. Actually, I recall now some questions about the reliability of some blogs as well; namely, that their authors, editors, or site managers may be able to retroactively change or remove posted information without notice. Such is true of any website, of course, but web copies of print publications have much less flexibility, since they can be called on it by comparing media — not to mention the unprofessionality, since retractions or corrections have traditionally been treated by the publishing industry as something to follow up, not replace, the questionable text. So blogs are probably even more complicated than Usenet. I fear we are going to have to develop some clearer sourcing policy on this (along with all the other work that WQ:SOURCE might need). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Slivowitz does not deny the quotes' authorship.--Cato 14:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Cato has been shown to be a sock of Poetlister and Yehudi, has been blocked, and has spent most of this Talk page talking to himself. Sad. --Slivowitz 02:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-publicizing bad faith
I'm not "self-publicizing", anyone can edit, add or take off quotes. Slivowitz has an awful lot of bad faith, and his comments are offensive to me. I was banned from Wikipedia because my account was compromised. I don't use "sockpuppets", I am Matt Sanchez and have never denied that.

Here's an article on Wikipedia bias that might be of interest to some on here.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wiki-whacked-by-political-bias/

I frankly, am not sure why I get people like Slivowitz so passionately opposed to me, but there are quite a few Slivowitz out there. Unsigned comment, 15:16, 16 May 2008 by User:Bluemarine


 * Thank you for that comment. I was unhappy with mass removal of quotes, but on the other hand the article could do with pruning; it's on my todo list.--Yehudi 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop this edit war please!
Can Slivowitz and Yehudi please not edit this article until they have had a sensible discussion. It might be helpful if Slivowitz would state his WP username so that people can judge his previous interactions with Sanchez and whether there is any CoI. I still do not understand why he said "First of all, I don't have any names "elsewhere," and your bad faith presumption is telling." We don't go round accusing each other of bad faith on this wiki, especially when the accusation seems to be based on the untruth that he has no names elsewhere.

Slivowitz seems to be saying that all the disputed Matt Sanchez quotes are indeed by Sanchez and come from Sanchez' own blogs. Thus there need to be other grounds for removing them against the wishes of another editor. Can he please explain which quotes should be retained and which should be deleted, citing the appropriate WQ policies. Wholesale removal of properly sourced quotes, unless done explicitly in accordance with WQ policies, is generally regarded as vandalism. However, if it can be established that there are valid policy reasons to remove them, I shall ensure that they are not restored.--Cato 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am troubled by mere insinuations about Wikipedia usernames. Let's be specific and direct. We have reason to believe Slivowitz is w:User:Eleemosynary, who has been indefinitely banned for recurring policy violations, the latest involving editing to Matt Sanchez. If so, his edits here appear to be the continuation of his aggressive efforts to modify material on this subject. That does not mean he is necessarily wrong in his points, but it does cause us to believe that he is being dishonest. But I don't feel we've been particular straightforward about getting to this particular point. I recommend that Slivowitz confirm or deny that he is WP's Eleemosynary before doing any more content editing.


 * Please note that being banned on Wikipedia is not a direct cause for being blocked here. Indeed, for some it's a badge of honor because they have the freedom to demonstrate that they can participate successfully here. But concealing one's cross-wiki identity while participating in conflicts that got one blocked elsewhere can lead to blocking if one does not work harder to iron out these disagreements with the other editors here.


 * But I am also troubled that the other editors here are not cooperating well, either. Characterizing the removal of eight quotes as "wholesale removal" and "a large swathe" is inaccurate. Even if they comprised the entire content of this article, they would still only be a small set in absolute terms. Yehudi's "no sensible reason for deletions" in an edit summary implies that the deletion arguments above have all been dismissed as non-sensible, but I don't see such a general conclusion. It's like we're talking past each other here, not with each other. And I'm most troubled by how Cato, an admin, has suggested that this quote removal might be treated as "vandalism". Vandalism is deliberate defacing of a wiki page. Selectively removing quotes on the basis of some qualities of the quotes or their sources (or their contributors for that matter) is not vandalism, whether or not the reason is ultimately accepted. This situation is clearly a content dispute.


 * I feel that the editors here, including all three admins (myself as well), may be losing our perspective on the broader issues here. I feel we should bring in more eyeballs before we take any extreme actions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Firstly, as Jeff says, being banned elsewhere is no reason to be banned here. The first reference to anyone being banned seems to be here "Sanchez, who is the editor "Bluemarine," now banned from Wikipedia." I do not know if this edit was made by Slivowitz. "Outing" an editor is regarded on WP as grounds for a block, but I am not prepared to say that this is WQ policy. However, it does detract from the civility that we seek to maintain here. Secondly, it does seem very plausible, even without checkuser evidence, that Slivowitz is Eleemosynary and it would have been helpful to say this and not deny that he has edited WP.

I cannot see that deleting eight of 11 quotes is other than a substantial excision, and it does need to be justified. Yehudi is overly enthusiastic in saying "no sensible reason for deletions". However, it would be helpful if Slivowitz lays out his thinking clearly. Sweeping statements like "WQ is not a platform for self-promotion" are unhelpful unless linked to WQ policies. I do not want to see WQ hijacked for improper purposes, and we do have a policy that "you should not create your own page in the main namespace for your own quotes." However, this article has gone to VfD and been kept, so the community accepts this article in principle.

On Cato's point, we have always regarded the removal of properly sourced and valid quotes as vandalism. If it is the consensus of editors that the quotes here are properly sourced and valid, then I would regard an editor who keeps removing them against consensus as a vandal. If, say, someone were to remove quotes from the Shakespeare page because he maintained that Shakespeare did not write them, that might well be vandalism. Having said that, Slivowitz has the right to try and show by reasoned arguments that the quotes should not be there. If he can convince others, then they should be removed; if he can't, they shouldn't be.

I am quite happy to be a neutral arbiter if that is acceptable to everyone; if not, we will need to find someone else to be. But please, can everyone remain rational and civil, including (indeed, especially) the admins here.-- Poetlister 21:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wouldn't say that identifying Bluemarine as Sanchez is "outing" in this case, since it is Sanchez who had already acknowledged himself to be Bluemarine on Wikipedia (see the discussion here). User:Bluemarine on Wikiquote also welcomes this identification, having entered the name "Matt Sanchez" on his userpage on May 16, 2008. See also Bluemarine's remark above: "I am Matt Sanchez and have never denied that." I would therefore suggest that identifying Sanchez as Bluemarine is civil and reasonable: it should be regarded as a good-faith statement by Slivowitz. - InvisibleSun 03:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to address some of my more general concerns at the village pump, but I just wanted to make a particular point about this article. Personally, I find at least several of the disputed blog quotes quoteworthy, and I ultimately am not especially concerned whether we decide to keep or remove those ones. What I do care about is:
 * That we don't try to claim policies or practices that have not yet been determined but are actually just the opinions of individual editors;
 * That we never, ever use the word "vandalism" except when the implicitly accused editor is engaged in "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the project", not just refusing to accept a consensus; and
 * That we do not bias discussions by claiming either inclusion or exclusion is somehow a preferred state that can only be reversed by consensus (unresolved disputes must inherently treat all positions as potentially reasonable, else the discussion is not a discussion but an enforcement action).
 * The quotes may be here or not at any given time — we can't simultaneously have it both ways — but this should not be a problem so long as the parties actually working with each other. I ask everyone participating here to review relevant discussions on how to resolve content disputes, as I will be doing as well. (I'd suggest starting with w:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Civility.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of "outing", Eleemosynary was blocked for just that reason ("No, we don't retaliate by naming people's supposed names on-wiki. if and when you fully understand this, you may request an unblock.)  This is despite the fact that the editor in question, Durova, has frequently revealed her name off-Wiki.  I shall deal with Jeff's points on VP.-- Poetlister  10:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say I'm unable to follow this reasoning. According to the WP definition of "posting personal information", it doesn't occur if an editor "voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself." Sanchez/Bluemarine has provided this information.  Bluemarine has posted on his userpage that he is Sanchez.  He has said on this talk page: "I am Matt Sanchez and have never denied that."  We have acknowledged this admission in our discussion.  Is it outing, is it uncivil, to acknowledge what someone has freely admitted, to say we know what he has explicitly told us? If so, then it is not merely Slivowitz who has outed Sanchez or has been been guilty of incivility toward him.  The rest of us have done so as well when we say that Bluemarine and Sanchez are the same.  Is this what you're saying? If not, then I confess I don't understand what you mean. - InvisibleSun 12:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not my reasoning; it is that of FT2, a member of the WP ArbCom. As I say, he blocked Eleemosynary for revealing Durova's name on WP although she had done so herself elsewhere. I would not have made that block, but my point is that this actually happened on WP; if you disagree with it, please tell FT2. If you argue that she had not revealed her name on WP, Bluemarine did not link himself to Sanchez on WQ until 16 May whereas the anon IP made the link on 24 April. By FT2's logic, that IP should have been blocked, though it could have been unblocked after 16 May. Incidentally, the edit that seems to have started the controversy has edit summary "rv unsourced POV by banned user". This is quite wrong, since Bluemarine has never been banned here.-- Poetlister 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Slivowitz
Why do people like Slivowitz feel the need to lie so much? My website Matt-Sanchez.com get over 100 hits an HOUR (and growing) why does this guy/gal whatever feel the need to pretend to be neutral? Bluemarine 08:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We have a serious problem on this article talk page, in that we are treating it as a place to argue about Slivowitz and Bluemarine instead of the article content. Can we please separate these issues? If we feel Slivowitz is violating policy or is being too disruptive, we can at least temporarily block him to prevent such disruption. Likewise, we can temporarily block Bluemarine or at least advise him not to edit here due to conflict of interest. But I would really appreciate it if we could focus on the content issues before us here (and their potentially wide-ranging impact on Wikiquote), instead of obsessing on the parties that originated it. Otherwise we're just expanding an unhelpful conflict. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes
Someone rather biased included parts of an interview from last year's Alan Combes show. The quotes were not only incomplete, they aren't sourced to an official transcript. Bluemarine 05:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ass Puss
Ass Puss productions? Am I the only one who sees this on the page?Bluemarine 06:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Most likely, as you probably placed it. Your MO -- both here and elsewhere -- has been to vandalize your own page, then claim you are "victim" to an "impersonator."  What a tiresome, transparent dodge. --Slivowitz 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing Self-Promotion
Now that the Cato/Yehudi/Quillercouch sockpuppet ring has come to light, I'm going to disregard the bad-faith arguments made previously on this page, and retain only the quotes that do not come from Sanchez's self-published blog. The other quotes are self-promotion, and have not been used by any reliable source. Feel free to weigh in with your opinions on this. --Slivowitz 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The quotes from Worldnetdaily, Pajamas, and Rightwingnews, Marine Corps Times, New York Post do not come from the Matt-Sanchez.com blog. Slivowitz is either misleading, sloppy or has trouble reading.  Bluemarine 05:13, 11 December 2008 (UT


 * The quotes from Worldnetdaily, Pajamas, and Rightwingnews, Marine Corps Times, New York Post were all placed here by Matt Sanchez in a fit of self-promotion. Sanchez is either misleading, sloppy or has trouble understanding what WQ is, and what it is not.  --Slivowitz 22:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some concern Sliv might be this banned editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eleemosynary


 * Established proof "Bluemarine" is ex-marine Matt Sanchez, who has been banned from Wikipedia under his many socks, and that he would like to use WQ for self-promotion. --Slivowitz 22:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also removing quotes Sanchez has placed here coming from "Worldnetdaily" and "rightwingnews." These are "echo chamber" retreads of Sanchez's own blog. His placing them here has been more of the same self-promotion. --Slivowitz 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The quotes you keep posting are not sourced by a transcript. Your vandalizing the article and this is getting childish. I've put up a notice on the board and move to have the article semi-protected. Bluemarine 05:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The quotes are sourced by the Alan Colmes show, and Salon.com. Your removing them is vandalism.  Best of luck getting the Cato sockpuppet to come back. --Slivowitz 22:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice board here...w:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:AN


 * You might want to send a message to Cato, Quillercouch, Yehudi, etc, as well. -Slivowitz 22:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the changes. The quotes are not only accurate, but they are properly sourced. Bluemarine 04:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your self-promotion has been reverted once again. Cheers. --Slivowitz 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Alan Colmes quotes are not placed in context and have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. You don't have an official transcript from the show. I've explicitly explained this comment and most of all, it's just not working.  The smear campaign has not prevented me from doing anything.

Vandalism
This article keeps getting vandalized. Please advise.


 * My advice to you, Mateo, would be to stop vandalizing it. :) --Slivowitz 05:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho
The quotes Allstarecho insists on inserting are not sourced and are incomplete. It's not a quote, it's a dialogue, it's out of place and it doesn't fit in anywhere. Bluemarine 19:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Prostitution section
Why doesn't the contentious editor known as Allstarecho just start a "prostitution" section and pertinent quotes there. I think the "dialogue" doesn't meet wikiquote standards, but maybe the editor can make a valid case for it, instead of all the furtive edits.Bluemarine 00:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)