Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 14


Contents

NPOV issues in "Political activism at Columbia University"

Resolved.

This section says "One of the accused students later disputed Sanchez's allegations, saying that though she did approach him to state that she found on-campus military recruitment offensive, that she had not referred to him with the claimed epithets." But this sentence cites an article (The Conservative Witch Hunt) written by a he - namely Zach Zill. "She" is obviously Monique Dols, but I think Zill's response to Sanchez's accusations deserves more consideration.

The current version gives undue weight to Sanchez's side of the story. Since the facts are in dispute, it's only fair that a more detailed account from the perspective of one of the accused should also be included.Reelm (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One other problem. An article cited in this section is listed in the ref links as "A Firm Stance: CU Marine Reservist Targeted In Angry Confrontation; No Disciplinary Action Taken." Notice how The Columbia Spectator revised the title. It's now simply called "A Firm Stance." A clarification was appended to the article:
Clarification: The body, caption, and headline of the article "A Firm Stance" (Jan. 25, 2006) misleadingly represented accusations that Zach Zill, CC '06, verbally assaulted reservist Matt Sanchez, GS '07, as established fact. The allegations were based on interviews conducted with Sanchez and Marine officer candidate Mark Xue, CC '06, and cannot be independently verified. Similarly, the article failed to clearly indicate that Zill and other members of the International Socialist Organization disputed the statements Sanchez attributed to Zill.
The current WP version says "one of the accused" disputed the allegations. But it looks like all of the accused publicly disputed Sanchez's allegations.Reelm (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We should make all of this clear in our account of the events. Aleta (Sing) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, the article calls "The Conservative Witch Hunt" an opinion piece by Sanchez, but it's not; it's by Zill. I'll try to clarify some of this. Aleta (Sing) 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was going to... Aatombomb was too fast for me. :P Aleta (Sing) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed that too. (Good grief!) Here's Zill's account of what happened and also his response to charges of anti-Hispanic bigotry:
On Activities Day in September, several other students and I confronted three military recruiters who had set up a table (complete with chin-up bar) in order to sign people up for ROTC. I pointed out the offensive nature of their table and its location (right next to the Queer Alliance table!), and I made clear my opposition to the war in Iraq and to the military's efforts to get new recruits to replace the 2,100 already dead and 15,000 maimed. I never made any of the statements that Matt Sanchez and Ms. Brunts attribute to me. There were several witnesses to this incident who are neither in the ISO nor in the military who can corroborate this fact.
Soon after the incident, I was informed that I was being investigated for harassment-with the now well-known charges that I had disparaged one of the recruiters because he is Latino. I eventually met with several deans and presented my case. I made especially sure to emphasize the fact that, in opposing the war, I have worked closely with numerous Latino veterans, such as Camilo Mejía and Pablo Paredes, who both publicly refused to be deployed to the Gulf. I was ultimately informed that the investigation found that I had not violated any part of the disciplinary policy.
The ROTC display was set up right next to the Queer Alliance table. Seems relevant, no?Reelm (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No, not relevant. The ISO will seek out Milvets wherever. It wasn't the Homosexual alliance that came over, it was the ISO. The homosexual alliance said nothing. Matt Sanchez (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Matt on this. There's no reason to comment on the relative locations of the tables. Aleta (Sing) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is relevant and it's stated so in the refs, however I'm not sure drilling down to that detail makes sense for this article although I could see going either way. To me it seems the clearer statements speak only of the words and actions and not so much the atmosphere. Benjiboi 14:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult entertainment section

Resolved.

(note: Retitling to let parent section, which is resolved to be archived and allow this to remain as unaddressed, for now. Benjiboi, January 9, 2008)

{{editprotected}} The section, Adult entertainment, especially the last line needs reworking.

The following uses the same last 2 sources as the current content but also uses IMDb (Internet Movie Database) and IAFD (Internet Adult Film Database).

In the early 1990's, Sanchez performed in gay pornographic movies under the names "Rod Majors" and "Pierre LaBranche." [1][2]
Original videos were issued by Catalina Video, Bijou Video, Falcon Entertainment and others.(refs were in article)

All reliable sources, no BLP issues. -- ALLSTARecho 03:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I would really prefer that any content additions wait until protection expires. The earlier protected edit request was to remove a BLP violation that needed no discussion to do so, and that could not stay in even the protected article. This is due to the WP:OTRS ticket that is cited in the protection summary. Regards, M-ercury at 04:05, January 8, 2008 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect Mercury, I disagree. The sources are reliable. The information is true and Matt does not deny that he was in gay porn. There's no BLP violation anywhere in this proposed copyedit. Further, waiting until the article is unprotected will cause nothing but edit wars between editors and additional protection. If an admin makes this change now, it has the force of adminiship. Further, as I understand it, you are nolonger an admin and I don't see you on the list of admins. Therefore, I believe, you can't decline this request. -- ALLSTARecho 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Your additions are perfectly valid and sourced, however, this article is currently incredibly controversial. It seems we may even have an ArbCom case for it. Ugh. The general rule is that editprotected requests are only done on controversial pages for small things (i.e., typo fixes, blatant errors, etc.). This is adding content; while other articles could possibly receive different treatment, under the current circumstances, this article should remain as untouched as possible, except for the need to remove material which violates the BLP policy. Otherwise, for the moment, full protection should do what it was intended to do. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately, I'm part of that Arbcom case. I just felt this was copyediting. The current version just seems so "ugly", that last line anyway that says Majors starred in over 20 videos, LaBranche in at least two. At the minimum, it should read Sanchez starred in over 20 videos, mostly as "Majors" but as "LaBranche" in at least two. Anyway, thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 04:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, neither IMDB nor IAFD are considered a WP:RS. In most cases, they can be used to say so-and-so was in a film, but since they're open to general user input, they don't hold up well in "controversial" cases. That's pretty much why I worded it that way. The sources provided hold up okay as sources, though they're pretty much spam. I wasn't able to find anything better that had a full statement of what or how many movies he was in. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The IMDB and IAFD sources are used only to source what studios he worked for. I don't see the problem  ?? -- ALLSTARecho 06:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No "problem", just that you stated "All reliable sources" when referring to IMDB and IAFD. Just commenting on that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Added with refs. Benjiboi 18:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Probation/Protection

Resolved.

So, ArbComm has put the article on probation, but it's still fully protected. Is there still an outstanding issue with the OTRS ticket that was issued a while back? Aleta (Sing) 15:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will remove page protection tomorrow morning (my time). Any major changes need to be proposed and discussed here first. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be an issue with the current crew of editors, thank you for your time on this. Benjiboi 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done The page has been unprotected. Please avoiding content which is not impecibly sourced. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Beauchamp Affair rewind

Resolved.

(redacted for sanity and space)
Franklin Foer, the editor of The New Republic:

“ On August 1, six days after the "skulls on their head in sector" meeting, the Army concluded its investigation. Two days later, a public affairs officer announced that Beauchamp's piece had been "refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false." The Army didn't announce this to The New York Times or even The Weekly Standard, let alone in a public report. It first gave the story of Beauchamp's supposed fraudulence to a former porn actor turned blogger named Matt Sanchez.[3] ”

While I (among others) have accused Sanchez of self-promotion, this is from the editor in chief of the magazine that originally published Beauchamp's fiction. Horologium (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While the above doesn't prove that Sanchez broke the story it does assert he was "involved" in some way which seems fine for the lede but the article section needs attention, and likely, a re-write. If anyone's willing please review those sources and propose a rewrite. Benjiboi 00:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping clear up the nuances, I find the current version acceptable enough. Benjiboi 07:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

infobox photo

Resolved.

I prefer Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg over Image:Matt Sanchez.jpg, as the latter is a bad quality photo. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez claims he owns the Columbia image, even though it's clear he doesn't. The image being used now says on its related page, permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. I think Benji changing it was to avoid any arguments about the image. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. That image's ownership is disputed. If the owner uploads or amends to satisfy concerns then fine. Benjiboi 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Both images are on Commons, and have OTRS tickets for them. Please explain in more detail why there is any reason for us to be concerned about the copyright status of either image. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the old image (at Columbia) *seems* to belong to someone other than Sanchez, though he claims he has the copyright to it. Since there's a question about it, and there is no question about the one in the article right now, better safe than sorry. Though you're absolutely right - this one's uglier. IMNSHO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The both *seem* to belong to someone other than Sanchez. You are not being clear. If you have a copyright concern, please articulate it very clearly; otherwise treat both images as if they are OK. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If you l;ook at the copyright there is an OTRS ticket for the one we currently are using, the one i removed has been questioned as having ownership has been pointed out as being owned by someone at Columbia University. Benjiboi 07:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, User:Elonka uploaded Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg and it does state there is permission on file with OTRS. What needs to be done is that image's OTRS permission checked and see who gave that permission. If it was Matt Sanchez or Elonka, then it is false and the image should be removed immediatetly because the image actually belongs to Columbia University's college newspaper Columbia Daily Spectator because that's where it originally ran and came from. The image summary says, Photography by Francis Bartus. Image owned by Matt Sanchez.. Francis Bartus works for the newspaper. On this very page or on his own talk page, during the whole "delete my page" rant by Sanchez, he claimed we were using the image in violation of copyright because he owns the image and didn't give permission for it to be used (a lie since he's the one on file at OTRS giving permission). So, until the true copyright issue is settled, the image shouldn't be used. I'd suggest the course of action here is that you John, since you're an admin, find out who gave that permission to OTRS for use of the Columbia image. I've since found out that the permission on file with OTRS is from Matt Sanchez himself and is all the more reason why this image shouldn't be used and should be deleted as he doesn't own that image to give permission for its use. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you know for certain that the Columbia University's college newspaper owns the copyright of that image. If so, can you give the publication details of the issue it ran in? John Vandenberg (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for the pub details. They were on this page at one time because someone else contested the image's use as well. Let me see if I can find it in archives. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 10:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Here you go John. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've since nominated the image for deletion at Commons. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 11:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez currently evading ban via Wikimedia Commons

Resolved.

Sanchez has registered over at Wikimedia Commons, and is attempting to get around his one-year ban here. It looks like he's convinced an admin to delete the photo that was formerly on the article page. (The one of his face that looked liked that it was taken with a digicam.) He told the admin the photo didn't belong him, despite prior protestations by both him and Elonka that it did. Now he's uploading photos from his blog, in an apparent attempt to get them onto the article page. I'm sure Elonka has a perfectly reasonable explanation. ;)

But seriously, admins: isn't Sanchez trying to get new photos into this article, and deleting old ones, a violation of his one-year ban? --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, his ban here does not apply to Commons. Aleta (Sing) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. But if he strips photos from the article via Commons (as he's done today), uploads new articles to Commons, then uses a proxy editor (Elonka, just by way of example) to post the new photos to the article, it would appear he is evading his ban. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we'd have that problem with Horologium since he's fed up with Sanchez's behavior himself. Elonka on the other hand.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me - please cease this immediately. Matt is not banned from Commons, so he is free to contribute within that projects scope. Elonka is not a proxy for Matt. This talk page is solely about the content - discussion about the editors here will result in being blocked. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes sir. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
He also appears to have a new Wikipedia user: matthewsanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). This users sole edit is about the changing of images for the Matt Sanchez article. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:People appearing in gay pornography

Resolved.

When one goes to the listing for Category:People appearing in gay pornography, one can only find Sanchez listed under his real name, Matt Sanchez. How can one code this page so that when one looks at that category listing, he will also be listed by his stage name, Rod Majors, which would then redirect to the Matt Sanchez article when clicked on? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please excuse the use of the regular http link to the category listing: I could not get the usual double-square bracket [[wikilink]] to work. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There would have to be an article for Rod Majors with the Category:People appearing in gay pornography tag on it. That won't be the case however since there already is a Rod Majors page that redirects to Matt Sanchez. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Categorize the redirect. Pairadox (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Rod Majors now appears in the cat. I also did Pierre LaBranche. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Rod Majors ended up under the letter R instead of under the letter M. Similarly, Pierre LaBranche ended up under the letter P instead of under the letter L. As far as I can tell, the other performers file alphabetically under their surname. — SpikeToronto (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Follow this link to see how. Pairadox (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone has recently taken me to task about categorisation of redirects, let me direct everyone to take a look at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects; in short it suggests that they shouldnt be categorised alongside normal categories. This isnt something I believe strongly about one way or the other, but I think that we could avoid it by creating a Category:Pseudonyms of people appearing in gay pornography which would contain the redirects. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be a case of "Alternate names for articles," a person who is known in multiple fields of endeavour under different names. Pairadox (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pairadox. Aleta (Sing) 12:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I do agree, however from a practical point of view I am seeing that category becoming filled with many alternate names for each person. It would be easier to have two categories - one for peoples names, and the other for aliases - each category could have a link to the other. That said, I'm not overly concerned about this - I'll go with the flow on this one. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fond of categorizing redirects. It messes up my bot. In fact, I strongly oppose having a category on Pierre - there are what, two movies that he's in? No one's going to be looking for his name in the category. I could possibly live with Rod being in the cat, but I'm not wholly convinced. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's think long-term here as the porn industry is known for actors using multiple names as well as misspellings of same by their companies. What's the long-term solution? Benjiboi 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is List of male performers in gay porn films is the long-term solution. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And how do we reconcile the above concerns of redirects with categories? Benjiboi 07:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the list gets placed first in the category, a short note in the description of the category could/would/does(?) point people to the list if they don't see the actor they're interested in. But that's just an off-the-cuff answer - I have no strong opinions on this matter. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is straying further and further from Matt Sanchez. Perhaps it could be continued at the category talk page. Pairadox (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Disagree, we're trying to resolve how to correctly list Rod Majors and Pierre LaBranche in the category so those looking for the information will find it. The issue seems to be reconciling a short-term solution with any policies. I'm advocating for readers only on this. Benjiboi 09:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)