User talk:Wjhonson

I have been a Wikipedian since Nov 11, 2003
My edit count using http://tools.wikimedia.de/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits as of 8 Jan 2008
Total edits 11190 (Eleven Thousand)
Articles 7592 (Seven Thousand)
Talk 1176

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please read this very Special Note before you proceed: On this page we will assume good faith about each other.

• That you have a strong belief that I might be a dick, is not evidence that I actually am. I don't happen to be one of those warm-and-fuzzy types. I'm more the Spock type with a bit of McCoy.
• There is the possibility, however bizarre it might at first appear, that although I don't happen to agree with you, I am in actuality a sensible person just as you feel you are.
• If you are under the impression that I'm violating policy in some way, you should be prepared to quote the exact wording of that part of that policy. I feel that I am quite aware of what our policies do and don't state, having myself spent many hours working on those same policies you're now throwing at me.
• If you don't feel that you have the sufficient dialectic tools to discuss things with me sensibly as adults, you might want to consider first having a good stiff drink.
• If you feel the pressing need to talk down to me, instruct me in etiquette, or impugn my intelligence or motivations, during your discussion, you are quite unlikely to be successful in your goal of correcting the Evil I'm allegedly unleashing upon the world.

---

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal Case Page

Some essays I happen to like, and which you might want to read:

Ethics, Don't smother conflict,Advice for new administrators,Honesty, Don't call a spade a spade, Inertia Don't Beat a Dead Horse Don't spite your face Don't template the regulars Charitableness Editors matter Expert retention Five pillars of evil Negotiation

ARCHIVING NOTICE: I reserve the right to archive any discussion older then 15 days. And I reserve the right to archive whatever I feel like archiving, and delete whatever I feel like deleting. For older discussions see /Archive1 /archive2

• /Archive3 (created Jul 16 2006) /Archive4 (created Jul 30, 2006)
• /Archive5 (created Feb 25, 2007) /Archive6 (created Sep 17, 2007)
• /Archive7 (created Jan 15, 2008)

Expert editors

I am a professional biographer, specializing in biographies of obscure persons of local historical note, as such I claim qualification as an Expert Editor on matters of Local History and Biography. Let me quote the No original research page: '"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.' Wjhonson 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

A user can blank their own talk page, see: Vandalism? from which I quote: " It is generally recognized that the user of a talk page has the right to blank it. (Deliberate repeated deletion of requests, such as of requests to be civil, is not vandalism. It is only WP:DICK.) "

And furthermore this: User Talk is Not Article Talk from which I quote: "Many users, including admins and at least two arbitrators, routinely remove comments from their Talk pages, and advertise this." At this point he quotes User talk:Neutrality which states "I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of not being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me."

And again this: xxx

Per these statements, I am removing any "outside comment" from my talk page that I don't like as wiki policy (see Wiki:Vandalism) states quite clearly that a user "may remove any outside comment from their own talk pages at their OWN discretion" (added emphasis). Wjhonson 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paramount hotel

I have nominated Paramount hotel, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramount hotel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Noetic Sage 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Paramount hotel

A tag has been placed on Paramount hotel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Referencing and web sites requiring a fee

I believe you are fundamentally misinterpreting/misapplying the guidlines by removing references to sites which require subscription (as for example on Gore Baronets. Per WP:EL, such sites should not be listed in an "External links" section of an article, but that policy does not apply to references, where the only thing that matters is whether or not a site is a reliable source. If this were not the case, we would have great difficulty in providing online references to sources such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, New Grove etc etc.. WP:EL applies only to links which are not being used as cites/references, "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." I have again restored the links to Gore Baronets, but if you have removed similar content from other articles, I believe you should restore it. David Underdown (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You fail to understand the great distinction I'm drawing between sites which have NO free source whatsoever, and those which do. References to the ODNB can be looked up freely in any library which has a copy. References to Stirnet cannot be looked up anywhere freely. Wjhonson (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nino Tempo and April Stevens

A tag has been placed on Nino Tempo and April Stevens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Fork. Adequately covered in individual entries.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ford MF (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which would make sense if the article I tagged was actually a redirect. Ford MF (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles analogy isn't really suitable here. In that case there is enough material--far more than enough--to justify separate articles for each entity, without creating unnecessary forks. The case of Nino and April? Not so much. cf. Jan and Dean Ford MF (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That you haven't actually uploaded any of it? Ford MF (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also both of those articles are barely stubs in their own right. When comparable articles on comparable (or even more notable) acts are not split up in the same way, I believe the onus is on you to explain why there should be yet another article. The Beatles are an exception, not the rule. Ford MF (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bluemarine RFA

You may want to weigh in Bluemarine's case, which has now been referred for arbitration. Aatombomb (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating the list of all the relevant pages for quick-linking:

RFA Bluemarine Talk

Evidence Talk

Workshop Talk

Proposed Decision Talk

Also, you should check this out [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatombomb (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

As required by Wikipedia this is a notice that I have included you as a party in my request for arbitration [[2]]--Kingofmann (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[request for arbitration] Wjhonson (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

afd

I have put the article David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) up for afd. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist

Blacklist linkWjhonson (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez and the link to County Historian

Greetings. I'm an uninvolved administrator here. I removed the paragraph on Talk:Matt Sanchez that included a link to the article on your website. I have no opinion on Mr. Sanchez, or on the accuracy or appropriateness of your site -- I'm only interested in applying the difficult and important BLP standards. Your article seems to violate privacy and host speculative defamation, so we can't include links to it on Wikipedia. If you re-add a link to this article, you can be blocked for disruption. Nothing personal, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link you replaced. As Quadell tried to explain, under no circumstances is it permissible to create a wiki page on your own site that violates all manner of Wikipedia policies, most notably WP:BLP and then link to it. If the link is replaced, you will be blocked. Shell ^babelfish 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a real shame that Wikipedia has turned into a venue for censorship of opinions. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a real shame that editors get the idea that Wikipedia ever was a place of their opinions. See the five pillars for what Wikipedia really is. Shell ^babelfish 02:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant. Talk pages are always about discussion. Your snide remarks to a new editor are uncalled for. Wjhonson (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. The record on this is chock full of opinions from Elonka Dunin, Durova, Horologium, Sanchez and the rest of his defenders, including yourself. The only opinions you disdain are those that don't match yours or those of the rest of the Wikipedia cabal that has ignored every rule this place has, and allowed and assisted Sanchez in turning Wikipedia into an anti-gay hate site. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick procedural note. In regards to [3] and [4], people who become involved after a case is opened can't be added as parties to the case without a motion to add them. You are free to ask people to participate, but not to demand that they do. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might like to add some evidence. The evidence doesnt need to be about the formally listed parties if you think it is relevant and important. If the evidence you add mentions someone not already listed as a party, leave them a courtesy note on their talk page with a link. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez Article

I've been trying to comment on the Matt Sanchez issues, but the Wiki-cabal has locked me out. Is there anything to do? Maybe you're not the right person to ask, though. Looks like they're getting ready to block you. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez's porn career

Hi, you seem to be more familiar with Sanchez's porn career, did he (or any of his films) get awards? If so I think it should be referenced. Benjiboi 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that the correct number of porn videos, and the complete videography, should be mentioned? Or is that yet one more exception to the rules made by Wikipedia on behalf of Matt Sanchez? Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a porn project page, I can't recall the exact link, but they there state that six is plenty, unless they're significant or have won some kind of awards or gotten non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Something like that. It's still possible we could simply link to the three sites that each give partial listings. I'm not sure if there's a general Wikiwide-consensus that they are all reliable sources or not. Wjhonson (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sanchez article now states that there are more than 20 videos with "Rod Majors" in the case. In fact, there are 44 such videos. Back when Wikipedia paid any attention to its own rules, it wanted to "get it right." Well, the fact is that Sanchez appears as Majors in 44 videos and as LeBranche in 2 videos. The Sanchez article is a lie. It mentions only half of the videos. Also, as time has gone by, the number of specific videos mentioned has dwindled below the six you've mentioned. Which, it ought to be noted, is a standard that's so selectively applied as to be completey arbitrary, which I might add is something that Wikipedia specializes in being. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well 44 is more than 20, so it's accurate, just a little weak. I don't think this is deliberate, most likely it's simply because none of the three major links actually provide the *full* listing. I'm now up to 49 videos, documented on my site. The main problem is that Wikipedia is made up of thousands of editors in what I like to humoursly call a "near-anarchy". It's certainly an interesting experiment in Sociology if nothing else, showing how a large group of people can or can't work together. Is it working? Is it successful? Wjhonson (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sanchez article presents a strong case against Wikipedia. It omits a lot of verified information, has been grossly manipulated by the subject, and has been protected against the truth by some very well-connected administrators, who at the same time have allowed and encouraged Wikipedia to be turned into a classic anti-gay hate site. This is just outrageous. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy and ethics

Wjhonson, I see that you pride yourself on being a genealogist. However, I have to admit concerns with some of your actions. I do genealogy too, and one thing that I thought most genealogists understood, is the importance of being careful with information about living people. Most genealogy software has options that allow for data to be exported only on the ancestors, but keeping information about living people private. Heck, look at the family tree at my own website: [5] and you'll see that for all the branches of tree that are about living people, that's all it says, is "Living."[6] This is something that I think all genealogists should be careful about, and I would hope that you too would considering the ethics of what you are doing, to ensure that you handle things with a high standard of professionalism. You might also be interested in reading these links to get advice from other genealogists: [7][8][9] Basically, when you are doing extensive research on someone and present it all in one place, you're not just doing "investigative reporting", you are also increasing the possibility that that individual is going to have their identity stolen or suffer other harassment from stalkers. So I ask you, please, be careful what information you are supplying, and I would recommend that you use extreme caution when providing any information which is not available via a simple Google search. Especially when providing information that might be used by criminals, such as to steal someone's identity or cause damage to their credit rating. Thanks for listening, Elonka 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez however is a public person. I'm sure you understand the difference between public persons and person who choose to remain, and are private. Everything I provided is from public sources. Sanchez can at any time stop being a public person by his own choice. He chooses to be a public person, but also wants no one to look into him. Doesn't that strike you as an uncomfortable balance? Wjhonson (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if you could *point* to anything on my site which would allow someone to steal his identity or to stalk him, please point it out and I'll remove it. By the way I'm not a genealogist, I'm a professional genealogist. This isn't a hobby, this is my career, this is how I pay my bills, this is how I eat. That's quite a different thing than the typical genealogist. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are different degrees of "public". Some people are very famous, but they have resources to deal with that fame -- they have bodyguards, attorneys, PR advisors, and other ways of protecting themselves. Other people are "minorly famous". They appear on TV every so often, maybe they've got a book out, maybe they do some public speaking, but they otherwise live pretty normal lives. For example, just because someone publishes a cookbook and appears on "Oprah", does that mean that they are fair game for someone to dig into every aspect of their personal history, and publish every piece of dirt they can find, including every nasty rumor that's ever been said about that person? I think that's excessive. I agree that Sanchez is a borderline case, but I still feel that he's been treated as too much of a target, considering the relatively minor notability that he has. --Elonka 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. I'd say 23,000 Googs is pretty good for "relatively minor". I don't think any of us forced him to stage a protest, publish opinion pieces in the college paper and then in the city paper, accept an award from a national organization, go on Television... twice, go on the Radio about a dozen times, launch online fights with 20 or so people. None of us Elonka created Matt except himself. He is to blame for his own fame or infamy. My revealing the name of his mother is hardly a violation of privacy since it's published online for the entire world to view at Ancestry, and at any rate, he's never once stated that he cares about it. He himself published his own birthdate, and birthplace. He himself stated where he went to High School, etc. So again if you see anything that violates his privacy, let me know and I'll remove it. He has already stated that he intends to write a book as well I forgot that bit just now in my rant ;) Wjhonson (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it is a dissatisfied later-in-life college student, who wrote a couple articles for his college paper, then one for the local city paper, and then a national organization decided to adopt him as a temporary poster-child. He got to be on the radio a few times, and then the blogosphere decided to make him their own "vilification" poster boy, and suddenly he was being hounded from all directions. I don't think he asked for that. But Sanchez aside, I would ask you, where do you draw the line ethically? At what point would you say that a genealogist was behaving unethically by publishing information and rumors about a living person? --Elonka 02:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

At what point would you say that a Wikipedia administrator was behaving unethically by coaching Matthew Sanchez in tactics for evading discipline for breaking rules here? Is it unethical for a Wikipedia administrator to send e-mails to Sanchez in which (s)he falselty accuses one of his critics of having AIDS? Would that administrator be fairly called a "hater" of Sanchez's critics, and be governed by Wikipedia's COI rules in his or her future involvement in issues relatihg to Matt Sanchez? Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring that he went on television, that he writes a blog which he proudly trumpets, and that he's stated that he is also writing a book. This entire fiasco developed because he called the Wikipedia Foundation, which he admited, and complained that we were actually following policy on the use of reliable sources to biograph him. He wasn't just on the radio a few times, but many. He has consistently promoted his image as a victim of the blogosphere while consistently maintaining a more-and-more public face. Don't you find that inconsistent? The family of Steven Stayner didn't create an on-going public spectacle out of their situation. There was a book and a few stray stories over many years and that was it. Matt is not in that same camp, his own actions show that he wants more publicity not less.

(Second wind.) You know as well as I that there are people who are essentially entirely private. They are born, they get married, they buy some land, pay taxes, get arrested for a fist-fight, get some speeding tickets, buy a new car, have kids or adopt, die, have a tombstone, obit. These are private people. Publishing details about their private lives, which you only know from personal interviews with people who hate them, is quite a different animal than re-publishing excerpts of their own writings or interviews, freely given and published in a book or newspaper. A whole different kettle of fish. I would also let you know that Matt, not one single time, has ever asked me, to remove anything I've posted on my site. Never. Not once. My email is right there in the project for anyone to send me mail. It's not hidden. Wjhonson (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I forget, he ran an escort website. He's never yet given any reliable reason why his excellent-top.com website was registered at the same address where he was known to have a business address. Same building, same apartment number. Can you explain how that's possible and yet have a prostitution website also registered at the same address, and have his own voice recorded *on* that website advertising his services ? So far, Elonka no one has been able to explain this strange co-incidence. Wjhonson (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia handles the coincidence is to censor any mention of it. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia is not censored, there is a standard of verifiability not truth. We need reliable sources to back up anything that might be contested. Benjiboi 04:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sanchez article has omitted a huge amount of verified information, and the various discussions have been closed to all but a favored few. Wikipedia is censored, untruthful, and untruthful about being censored and untruthful. At the same time, you've allowed Wikipedia to become a classic hate site, where people like Sanchez are encouraged and assisted in spreading anti-gay bigotry. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But if we're untruthful about being untruthful, does that mean we're truthful? That's a joke! Sorry I could not resist. I crack myself up sometimes. Actually Tennessee, Matt is probably very close to being perma-banned. There is an ArbCom case going on right now, in which I'm participating, and where that is one of the proposal's we're discussing. I know Benjiboi is relatively late to the Matt Sanchez circus of stars, but hopefully he's following the ArbCom case. Wjhonson (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say Sanchez isn't the only one who should be "perma banned" at Wikipedia. The administrators who have insulated this article from the truth, and who have aided and abetted Sanchez in turning it into a hate piece, ought to be tossed out. If there was ever a case that Wikipedia's so-called "arbitrators" should examine, this is one of them. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy and Ethics (Part 2)

Wjhonson, I doubt you're going to hear me when I say this, but I'll try anyway: For me, the ethical line is drawn here: "Does the subject get upset?" If I've got a family tree about someone, and they're upset that their name is on it, even if their real name is already public on their own website, then I will remove their name from the public version of my family tree. It's a simple case of respect for the people that I'm doing research on. The day that I tell someone, "You don't like that you're related to me? Tough, I'm publishing your information anyway," is the day that I'm going to start having trouble looking at myself in the mirror. In your case, with Sanchez's information, I would also point out that you are not doing your research out of respect for the subject. You are clearly doing your research out of a desire to "out" him, to force the world to see unpleasant information about Sanchez. That, again, strikes me as unethical. Next, I would ask you to take a look at who your allies are here, and on the flip side, who are the people who are speaking up with concerns? Aside from the fact that people are agreeing with you or disagreeing with you, look deeper, and see whose opinions you have respect ::for, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with you, and then take another look at what they're saying. Or in other words, are you just agreeing with the hotheads? Or are there calm and thoughtful people who are disagreeing with you, that you are simply choosing to ignore because you "don't think they're looking at it the right way"? I realize that you feel strongly that you are in the right, but please, could you at least consider that you might have gone over the line on this one? Some good people, thoughtful people, experienced Wikipedians, are saying that your site is a problem. And yet instead of listening to them, you keep escalating your behavior.

Next, I would ask you this, on the question of ethics. One of the tests for whether or not something is ethical, is to think about how your actions would be perceived, if you had to stand up in front of your peers -- people you respect, who had publicly seen all your actions. Or in other words, how do you think that other professional genealogists would regard what you are doing? Personally, I think some of them would be appalled. And lastly, I would ask you this, in terms of your professionalism. Think of your clients, or future clients. How do you think that they would feel about doing business with you, if they knew that if you found unpleasant information about their past, that you would go public with it, even if they objected? Personally, I think that that's a bad way to do business. So again, I ask you to please think hard about what you're doing here. It is my opinion that you are behaving in an unethical manner. I believe that you should delete your Sanchez site, because that would be The Right Thing To Do. Show respect for your subjects. Behave in a professional manner. Be aware when your emotions are so close to your work, that you might not be thinking clearly. And if you don't believe me, then fine, find someone else that you trust. Someone who is not connected with the Sanchez mess. Find a professional genealogist that you respect, who has never heard of Sanchez, and ask them their opinion. I think you'll find that they say the same thing as I've been saying. Sincerely, Elonka 07:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First, If I write that Anne Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot" which she did, and which is notable and sourced and yet she decides later that she wishes she hadn't said it, then you Elonka, would delete it completely and block, ban, and harass anyone trying to add it back. Is that what you're saying? I'm interesting in being corrected here. Where do you draw the line between integrity to being a historian, biographer, journalist, and trying to make the subject happy? Where is that line, since you're asking me a similar question. Wjhonson (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Second, if you are assuming the purpose for which I'm doing my research, haven't you already preconceived a notion that my only purpose here is evil? Doesn't it seem like there might be a problem with that sort of approach? Could instead it just happen to be that, oh I don't know, that I have a desire to find out what the evidence truly is? And that that desire is not one of seeking to destroy a person, but only of seeking the answer to certain questions? Such as what exactly *is* the evidence that he ran an escort website? What exactly *is* the evidence that his porn career was longer than he now states? Investigating a person is not inherently for any sinister purpose. Can you accept this statement without trying to pin on me some ulterior motive?

Thirdly, statements that my site is a problem are unsourced opinions, unreliable, and should not be considered. If you want my attention point to SPECIFIC statements on my page which specifically lack a source. Noting that external sites do not need to comply with Wikipedia policies. I'm only now referring to statements that lack a source at all. I have never attempted to insert my *personal* opinion on Sanchez into his article. Other editors however I am not in a position to say the same about. That does not mean that have or they haven't. But I have not. One of the test cases, whether Sanchez gets blocked permanently, and whether we can in fact, cite the nationally-broadcast Alan Colmes Show as a reliable source, will hopefully be decided in ArbCom and this entire fiasco will go away. Do you think they'll decide that we cannot? Doesn't it seem from ArbCom so far, that this entire effort to save Sanchez from his own sourced statements is already over? Wjhonson (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is truly outrageous, even for Wikipedia. Elonka Dunin, an administrator, draws the line when the subject of an article "gets upset?" How utterly fatuous and hypocritical, not to mention at cross-purposes with what Wikipedia claims to be. Matthew Sanchez is a public figure, by which I mean to say that he has willingly injected himself into an issue of public note. Johnson's site contains verified facts about Sanchez. The so-called "hate site" operated by Charles Wilson also contains facts, along with negative commentary on those facts. In Dunin-World, it is "hate" to express a negative opinion about someone she likes, but not "hate" to tell lies -- up to, and incuding, prima facie libel -- about someone she doesn't like.

Wikipedia's article, and the surrounding discussions, contain a series of anti-gay slurs authored by Sanchez, and specific attacks on individuals, including a libel against Wilson. This libel -- that Wilson has AIDS -- is also one that you, Ms. Dunin, have repeated in backchannel conversations with Sanchez, along with other unfounded accusations. Yet, you come here and chastize Johnson on "ethical" grounds? Have you no shame whatsoever? By what set of mental gymnastics do you claim that the rules apply to everyone except yourself and those you have decided to take under your wing? Where is that Wikipedia "pillar," Ms. Dunin? I want to see it.

Ms. Dunin, do you deny that you've made these statements about Wilson? Please, make your denial. But be careful as you do so, because everything you've written has been archived. Any denial you make is going to be blown clear out of the water by your own words. Which, so you know, I have decided to pass along to Wilson along with a mountain of other information about Sanchez that renders this discussion about the man's background and current activities quaint. I've asked Wilson not to publish it for the time being, pending the outcome of this proceeding and some other ones. But, at some point, I'll release Wilson to do as he pleases with the information I have gathered.

Then, Ms. Dunin, we will all find out exactly -- in your own words, faithfully reproduced -- just who has been operating a "hate site" and who has been "unethical." And won't that be interesting! Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom comments

Wjhonson, thank you for the courtesy note that you had been linking my diffs in your ArbCom evidence. I haven't read all of your evidence, but did scan through the parts pertaining to me. My main concern, is that you seem to be misquoting me a bit, perhaps because you have been reading more into my comments than what I said. To be clear, my comments to you above are about your website, not about the Wikipedia article. I have never said that we should remove information from Wikipedia articles simply because the subject protests -- I was talking about a wider issue of ethics involving professional genealogists. On Wikipedia, we already have a set of policies, such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Further, I agree that when information is already covered in reliable peer-reviewed secondary sources, that it's "fair game" for a Wikipedia article. The problem with the Sanchez article, is that we have too many people trying to "connect the dots" of original research, to make a case about something that we don't have "multiple, reliable secondary sources" on. And the issue with your website, is that you are trying to bypass Wikipedia policies, by presenting inappropriate information on your site, with tons of primary sources and rumors, and then just linking to your site from the talkpage. There's a line between researching and stalking, and though I do not think that you are always across that line, I think that at the moment, you have crossed it. For proof, just look at your contribs: Wjhonson (talk · contribs). It's obvious that you are fixated on this subject. I think you have lost perspective, and I wish that you could take a step back, take a deep breath, and really listen to what people (including me) are trying to tell you. :/ --Elonka 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Dunin, it would seem that your definiton of "stalking" is "the reporting of facts that Elonka Dunin would rather not be reported." Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee Jed 4415, with all due respect, Elonka seems to be going out of their way to explain some of the difference between what is fine on wikipedia compared to elsewhere as well as making meaningful observations that could help Wjhonson maintain good standing on wikipedia. "Stalking" is a rather loaded word but in fairness Elonka is hardly the first to use that characterization and even a casual overview of the page seems to support what Elonka states that what Wjhonson has on the page isn't all allowed on wikipedia thus linking to it is also problematic. Given the current Arbcom case with Sanchez it would seem wise to stay within the boundaries of acceptable editing especially in regards to anything having to do with Sanchez. Many editors agree that this situation has escalated but now it's at Arbcom and being sorted out. If you wish to be a part of the wikipedia editing community I suggest you show some respect for those processes even if they don't always draw the same conclusions you might. Sadly the article is frozen until the Arbcom case has concluded and when that is over editing will resume, hopefully with a clear understanding that assertions need to be sourced. Benjiboi 02:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns Benjiboi, but so far no one, neither editor nor admin, has been able to find exactly where in our policies it states that each link on a user, or talk page, must itself have contents which themselves conform to our own internal policies. I would really appreciate it, if perhaps you'd check on that and let me know where that blurb is. There are several thousands links out there that I'd personally like to remove for some of those very reasons, but of course I would want to make sure I'm within policy before I did it. That's because I edit within policy. I always have. And where any editor or admin can show me where I've failed by citing exactly the section of policy, than I adhere to that provided it isn't of course subject itself to a thousand interpretations. In which case, it should go to the Talk page of that policy to be hashed out. So thanks for any research you can turn up that supports this view! Wjhonson (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The "community" has made it impossible for me to participate in those proceedings. It's not a "community," it's a cabal that excludes and/or threatens those with whom it disagrees, while protecting and encouraging libel and viciously anti-gay hatred on Wikipedia. To top it off, Elonka Dunin calls those who tell the truth "unethical." She wants to censor Johnson not just on Wikipedia but off of Wikipedia as well, even though she has accused Charles Wilson of having AIDS in her own off-Wikipedia communications. And you think it's all in a day's work. Wow. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, in response to your question, please see WP:BLP, specifically:

• Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
• Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution.
• Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if ... it is not contentious
• In WP:EL: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies.

--Elonka 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, this is not a one-man fight by Wjhonson "against" Sanchez, as you well know. You once said: "In regards the Colmes interview, I actually think it's worth including..."User_talk:Typing.monkey/archive2#Sanchez There are "multiple, reliable secondary sources" for Sanchez's admission of prostitution, which have been simply shouted down by a handful of editors on the Sanchez page. It's the disrespect of community consensus about this issue and the fact that this burial of fact directly contravenes policy that is so maddening to many, many, editors. Your attempts to guide Sanchez throughout this dispute have been admirable, but where do you draw the line? Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 03:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Dunin, do you deny that you accused Mr. Wilson of having AIDS in your off-line conversations with Mr. Sanchez? If so, then I can create a website and reproduce your own words. I believe Wikipedia has guidelines about the conduct of its administrators and editors in such situations. So, please, tell us how you've conducted yourself and give us an ethical analysis. As you do so, be sure to tell then truth. Thank you. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure Elonka, I've never disputed any of that. In fact I helped write part of it. However the intent, imho was to prevent the location of material with an in-Wiki search, and to prevent the material from appearing in search engines under the auspices of the wiki. None of that applies to links since they do not actually insert the *material* within Wiki. You will also notice I'm sure that we have a special section just for Talk pages on that very policy page you quote. Do you understand why we created a special section just for Talk pages on WP:BLP ? Wjhonson (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How to Deal With Sanchez

His notability is as one of a series of anti-gay conservative Republicans who were found to be themselves homosexual. Matt Sanchez belongs in the same category as Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Jeff Gannon and others of that ilk. They are individually notable by Wikipedia's published standards (which are capriciously applied by administrators who don't take them seriously), and notable as a group.

Any article about Sanchez should mention the total number of his porn videos; treat his filmography in the same manner as other filmographies are treated; discuss his prostitution; and discuss his ongoing homosexuality. It should also discuss the extraordinary lengths that senior personnel at Wikipedia have gone to in their efforts to keep verified factual information out of the discussion. This is a common element when conservative hypocrisy comes to light. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with you about certain things above. For example, an interesting edit to his article might state something like "He is credited in 29 porn films according to his IMDb entry, although his IAF entry shows 36. Of course he won an award for blah blah and his other most well-known work was in blah blah and blah blah" Something like that, of course replacing blah blah with the names of perhaps 6 of his films. That way you can get sourced statements of the number, while still limiting the list of actual named films to the six that the Porn Project recommends. I don't think we need to necessarily discuss his "ongoing homosexuality" as you put it, that seems a bit too much of an unsourced attack. The main issue would be to show reliable secondary sources stating that, which I haven't yet seen. As far as his prior prostitution, whether we can include the evidence for that is one of the issues in ArbCom, hopefully they will rule on that. I trust you are following the case there. In general Wikipedia doesn't do a lot of naval-gazing on behaviour, however you might look at Wikback. It's an interesting site, I've only just discovered. It has a real nice potential for assisting the project imho. I've never been happy with the entire IRC-channel situation which might appear to give the impression of allowing too much off-Wiki interaction. Wjhonson (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your viewpoint on the issue of Sanchez's ongoing homosexuality. It is a challenge to deal with that question. He has taken an anti-gay stance in his public life, and asserted that he is, and always has been, heterosexual. At the very least, I think those assertions should be noted as claims in an article. That would be a neutral way to treat it. The prostitution ought to be an open-and-shut matter. It's nothing short of weird that it's been censored from the article, given that Sanchez himself admitted it in an article and in a radio show, not to mention that his prostitution website has been authenticated and published online. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 01:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the double notification is because of the case name having changed. — Coren ^(talk) 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Emails

Please do not publish emails which you didn't author onto Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence. This is intensified given there is the possibility they were obtained through allegedly-illegal means. Please do not readd private correspondance without the author's permission—especially when you aren't even a recipient of the email from the author—again. Daniel (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, misread the history - it wasn't you who posted them, but rather Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk · contribs), and you edited an unrelated part of the page in between which was the source of the confusion. Sorry about the misplaced note — regardless, please consider this a courtesy note that I have had to blank part of your userpage due to the above concerns. Furthermore, some edits to this page have been deleted (and are being restored selectively under close scruitiny by Thatcher) and the email ones, in particular, are in the process of being oversighted. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel why did you remove my page heading information? Is there some policy or ArbCom decision that says we cannot create welcome-sections on our talk pages? Wjhonson (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, because the edit adding it was deleted/oversighted (because that version had a copy of the email published on it), it would have got lost as collateral damage. Of course there's no policy like that :) Daniel (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a technical glitch, because deletion and oversight doesn't remove the bad contribution as such, it removes saved page versions. If a bad post is immediately reverted, then there is only one bad version. Since there were several posts after the bad post, there were about 10 versions of the page with the bad content on it that had to be removed. Sorry for any inconvenience. Thatcher 12:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious treatment of "published"?

Wjhonson: I see you were instrumental in developing the article Wikipedia:Published. Has this subject received any additional address by administrators since then? Recently editors/administrators have offered strong opinions that college transcripts issued by accredited universities are unpublished; hence an opinion that these do not achieve an essential threshold status of “published” regardless of the source's reliability or accessibility of the document. To me this seems odd given that court transcripts are routinely accepted as a reliable source, and these are no more "published" than college transcripts, and in a majority of instances less "published" than college transcripts. Other than the article mentioned above, are you aware of any other instance within Wikipedia were the question “What is “published”?” has received serious treatment? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This sort of idea is typical of people unfamiliar with the nuances of the issue. Could you give me a link directly to the conflict location? Thanks and have a super day. Wjhonson (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: I see you found the discussion where this issue was raised and continues. I was not trying to drag you into the fray, but am pleased you took the initiative to join in.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed

"Personally I find people who are bland, mature, and productive to be boring"

I couldn't possibly agree with you more! Aatombomb (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Snarkiness

I just looked at my last comment and I think it's rubbing off. Our exchange really doesn't have much to do with the motion anymore. How about we both strikethrough? Durova^Charge! 07:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Wjhonson (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. Durova^Charge! 08:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi Wj! Just to avoid a misunderstanding: I'm only reporting the arguments that have been advanced without necessarily endorsing them. This is a hard delineation problem. I personally differentiate between groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and Physicians for Human Rights on the one hand and organizations like the American Enterprise Institute and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project that are more-or-less opinion machines for hire on the other hand. But the difference is not always easy to communicate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means

Feel free to help out mate and put your name on the list of mediators. At the moment User:Marvin Shilmer does not seem to like the way i have been doing this case and although he hasn't said it outright essentially thinks im incompetent. Though the exact phrasing was as follows:

"warning from the person who took it upon themselves to do the work of mediation. It is a farce! If he has time to issue warnings then he has time to spend on testing edits for objectivity! If he is going to mediate then he needs to get on with it. He also needs to remember that none of us are here for personalities. We are here to edit encyclopedic content!" and when he removed the warning his edit summary was "removed crap". I have been working on this case constantly for 5 days and essentially what has been said is that he feels i have done nothing for this case and just sat on my arse and let the 2 of them . Which i didn't take kindly to but i am just gonna forget about it and move forward to try and get this sorted.

Atm any help would be greatful as it means i can certainly get a second opinion on what im saying/doing and whether im doing this correctly or not. I dont know why there is this argument occuring over whether the source should be used or not because i thought we had agreed that there was nothing wrong with it being used as a source and that as long as nothing was being interpreted from it it was fine.

Anyway i suppose we just have to plod on. Ill put your name in the list of mediators and hopefully you'll do a better job than what i have been doing.

Seddon69 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See a comment at User talk:Wjhonson/Sources

Hello Wjhonson. After contributing to the thread at WP:RSN, I was happy to hear you were creating a draft essay. I left some comments on its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings and comment

Wjhonson: I understand and appreciate members of the Mediation Cabal are volunteers. But taking a task upon oneself brings obligation to actually do something productive. Are these mediations to coddle editors or to improve content? I need no one to hold my hand! If another editor needs this he or she is in the wrong place. Wikipedia is not an experiment in babysitting. Hence, I am compelled to conclude mediators are primarily charged to help improve content. This is not rocket science. Objective editing is testable and measurable. To watch a would-be mediator remain silent in the face of an editor who purposely inserted false information into an article is disgraceful. For quite some time the mediator in a dispute which I was named has had ample resources to test and measure certain edits in dispute. What has happened? Essentially, nothing whatsoever. I am not even the one who began crying for help from mediators. Editors Cfrito and Vassilis78 are responsible for that. I have cooperated. I have responded promptly to all requests. What I get in response is a “warning” for the sin of editing in good faith. This is not mediation. It is coddling to weak positions! There is no need for Seddon69 to read me. Here it is in plain English: As far as I can see, he or she is either incompetent, indolent or both. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)