User talk:Truthjusticeamericanway

Matt Sanchez article

Please read up on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Please note: I'm not accusing you of this but I believe your voluminous comments on the talk pages fly in the face of the policies and do violate the spirit of cooperation needed to produce good articles.

I suggest that you

1. "chill" and when you do repost keep it civil and productive. If another editor(s) are adding unverified statements or information supported only by blogosphere rumors it will be deleted. It might not happen immediately but there are a lot of folks watching the page so it should happen rather soon. 2. Focus instead on adding the material you think is missing and should be included. Providing the weblink directly to the source and it's easy enough for someone else to start to sort it out. 3. Work on some other articles. Biographies of living people are notoriously back and forth processes that take time. You may have noticed that I have yet to make a big edit since I haven't had the time to read through everything that's already happened and I've been working on other articles. Having an additional set of comments each day makes it harder when it's rehashing the same points. Benjiboi 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went and looked through the whole history of this thing. Well, most of it anyway. I'm not a "Wikipedian." It seems to me that Wikipedia does everything it can to keep people out of here by running them up, down, and around the racing track with rules, which are then freely ignored by Wikipedia's administrators. Efforts by you, WJBscribe, and other administrators to exclude my participation are part and parcel of this. Yet, at the same time, Sanchez continues to edit his own article, with help from administrators who as his protector, his spokesman, and his promoter. It's really sad. Truthjusticeamericanway 18:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with what you're stating in the talk pages. The style is disruptive-ish when you look at the talk pages history and see users such as yourself post 5-7 times in a row across topics. It makes it harder for any editors to follow the discussion and communicate. i first let a similiar warning on Matt Sanchez & Blue Marine's pages and felt it only fair to do the same for opposing viewpoint editors that may have been following his lead. If everyone can relax a bit the talk pages might become more useful to all concerned. Benjiboi 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much only been responding to other comments there. I agree with you that it's a circus. The history of the talk page shows that it's been a circus all the way along. I don't know that calling for a cessation of comments will accomplish much. The history of the article itself shows that, when opponents of what's being done there back off, Sanchez and his promoters at the senior levels of Wikipedia take more facts out, and do so unilaterally. It's a real abuse of what Wikipedia calls "good faith." I haven't edited the article itself, because WJBscribe has made it clear that he, and he alone, arrogates the absolute right to dictate its contents. Truthjusticeamericanway 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And its so UNFAIR

"Sanchez has everything, looks, intelligence, education and people like him. I'm just a paranoid, conspiracy, unhappy, unattractive homosexual who has lost too much money on escorts who obviously aren't interested in me" from "Silly Wilson" Matt Sanchez 19:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reposted from matt Sanchez talk page -

Please stop personal attacks

Posting "I'm just a paranoid, conspiracy, unhappy, unattractive homosexual who has lost too much money on escorts who obviously aren't interested in me"[1] violate Wikipedia's civility and personal attacks policies. Please stop. Benjiboi 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to check the history of the Sanchez article talk page and see that Sanchez himself has a consistent history of this sort of thing, yet the administrators not only tolerate it but have come to act as his protector and promoter. The way I see it, the end result is that Matt Sanchez has been allowed to edit his own article by proxy, systematically excluding verified information that embarasses him. Truthjusticeamericanway 20:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you and TypingMonkey both stop following his lead his actions will stick out more or even better he might stop. Regardless, accurate information will be added to the article despite his voluminous postings that detract from the process. Benjiboi 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Benji, what has happened here and what will keep happening is this: Wikipedia's administrators and senior editors will continue to protect and promote Matt Sanchez here. They've mastered the "process," complete with twisting the rules to omit the truth and exclude those who'd like to tell it. By the time this is all done, there will be barely any, if any, mention of Sanchez's gay porn videos. His prostitution will be excluded. His "notability" will be based on his fame in right-wing circles and those "reports" from the Middle East on his blog.

This will be a "victory" for Wikipedia's administrators in a narrow sense, but I can guarantee you that it will serve to discredit Wikipedia, whose reputation has already been hurt by this incredibly corrupt handling of the Sanchez issue. Truthjusticeamericanway 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the process could be going better and that Matt himself should probably be banned from the talk pages altogether and work through someone else exclusively but diagree on conspiracy theories that you're suggesting. I think in time the article will be sorted out but I too am hesitant to even touch it at this point. So much for being bold! Benjiboi 11:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the article will be "sorted out." It will exclude all mention of Sanchez's prostitution, and will barely mention (or maybe skip entirely) mention of his gay porn career. It will be a nice, smooth lie. That's what Wikipedia's administrators desire. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to say that. Anyone who reads through the history of the article can see it. My partner gave up a month ago, and now he's decided to work around Wikipedia as I always told him he should do. I'd say the same to you, Benjiboi. Don't get yourself in the position of defending these people. They have no intention of telling the truth in the article, or in dealing with you or anyone else according to their published rules. WJBscribe, Elonka and the rest have an agenda of protecting and promoting their friend. Truthjusticeamericanway 06:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree there. I hold hope that good articles happen even to former male prostitutes. Benjiboi 08:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "good" article is a true article. Wikipedia has decided it does not want a true article about Sanchez on its blog. If you can change it, great. But if I were you I'd be careful not to become Wikipedia's defender. Fact is that the article as it exists is not truthful. That is because Wikipedia has removed true information. Keep that in mind, okay? 24.18.130.89 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again we'll have to agree to disagree, all articles are in process so I don't expect them to be perfect, however i do agree that Sanchez's article needs correcting and I'm convinced it will happen in time. Benjiboi 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting thing. I see that "Elonka" has now reversed herself and is wanting to re-insert the material about Sanchez's prostitution. This might be a sign of progress, but you never know if it isn't just a head-fake. I see that WJBscribe has nominated Elonka to be an administrator @ Wikipedia. Remember, Elonka has been the prime actor in the transformation of the Sanchez article into a promotional tool for him, and his most ardent protector. Elonka also has maintained back-channel communications with Sanchez via telephone, mail, and (possibly) personal visits, and then denied doing it.

I'm not going to dump on you for trying to do the right thing, but I am going to caution you not to get too confortable with these people. After listening to my partner and then finally reading most of the history here, I think Wikipedia and its administrators are dangerous and not operating according to their own rules. Keep your wits about you, Benjiboi. 24.18.130.89 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I showed Elonka's suggested restoration to my partner, and he laughed pretty hard because he wrote the material. I've seen the messages from her to my partner where she said that my partner was obessesed with Sanchez and that he was jealous of him and in love with him. She and the other top dogs @ Wikipedia banned my partner, and now of course me. And she's now being nominated to be an administrator. My partner said to me, "See? Are these people on drugs, or what?"

I think I see. Benjiboy, don't get too comfortable here. There's no telling what will come next. 24.18.130.89 03:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Does It Again

I have been indefinitely blocked on the grounds that I am allegedly a "sock puppet" of PWOK. This is not true. Sanchez says it, so Wikipedia's senior administrators have decided that it must be true. Amazing! Truthjusticeamericanway 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this was initiated by "Elonka," an editor who has maintained active communications with Sanchez, via telephone, mail, and (possibly?) personal visits. So much for Wikipedia's rules pertaining to civility, good faith and all the rest! Truthjusticeamericanway 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about me, but it is incorrect. --El on ka 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You posted something about it in a previous comment. You have been in dierct personal contact with Sanchez. Please don't deny it. Truthjusticeamericanway 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it was in an e-mail to PWOK or a chat with him? He showed me all this junk and my eyes were glazing over after a while. Elonka, I can assure you that PWOK isn't in love with Sanchez like you told him he was. After I got him calmed down about that one, we had plenty of laughs about it. Truthjusticeamericanway 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating you are not PWOK? Benjiboi 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That correct. I'm not "PWOK." I live with PWOK. I am his partner. Not his "sockpuppet," but maybe I can get him to call me that tonight. :-) He has been ragging at me about this for months, and I've been laughing at him for caring so much about this silly dude. Do any of you have any idea what it's like to live with an investigative reporter? My God, you should be here. The guy has a theory about everything, and the problem is that he's usually right. I want to feed him drugs or something. Anyway, after he got thrown out of here before we took a trip, I said okay I'll take a look at this junk. I sort of got captivated by it all and saw that he was right. I don't know shit from shinola when it comes to computers, which is why I didn't have a sign-on here.

I'm not sure what to think about being banned. On the one hand it's a blessing in disguise because I won't get sucked into this black hole, but on the other hand I'm starting to be just as outraged as PWOK was. Now he's laughing at me and saying, "See what I told you?" I was in the Navy for 20 years and know all about rules and how they can be used and misused. Anyone who's ever been on a ship will know what I'm talking about. Truthjusticeamericanway 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could just use this page as a shadow comment page, but I doubt I will. The minute it becomes effective, Wikipedia will block my access to my own page, I'm sure. It's painfully clear that someone here has an agenda to protect and promote Sanchez. I've seen it before in other times and places. Different people, different issues, same smell. Truthjusticeamericanway 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I guess. It is just obvious that Sanchez was a prostitute. He's admitted it more than once, and the evidence is all over the place. The idea that Wikipedia could delete this information and then, with a straight face, call its article true or accurate, is ridiculous. "You can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Truthjusticeamericanway 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read the information on meatpuppets. --El on ka 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to read up on telling the truth. Truthjusticeamericanway 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, your conduct has probably been especially outrageous and offensive. You harrassed me partner, made up lies about him, have lied about your relationship with Sanchez, and have posed as someone who operates according to Wikipedia's rules. It's shameful, and it's oh so typical of what I saw during my time in the Navy. The difference is that, in the Navy, your tactics are swiftly recognized and dealt with appropriately. That Wikipedia's administrators have tolerated your activities says very, very bad things about Wikipedia. It may well be at least part of why Wikipedia's reputation is faltering.

I agree with what my partner has been saying. But I am not him. I told him he was nuts to care so much to begin with, and then to get himself thrown out. He should stick to his site about Sanchez, which I understand is now beginning to compete quite strongly with this ridiculous article. The idea that I would be banned because I live with PWOK is something out of Russia before the fall. Truthjusticeamericanway 22:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Benjiboy

Be very careful what you wish for.

You have suggested making the basis of Sanchez's notability his right-wing rants during 2005 and 2006. That is not the basis of his fame. No one knew who he was until he got that award from the right-wing group, and the gay bloggers exposed his porn and prostitution. Before that, he was just some dude on TV. After that, he was a hypocrite on TV.

If Wikipedia decides that the right-wing commentary is the basis of Sanchez's fame, then they'll remove not just the material about his prostitution but also about his gay videos. WJBscribe has assumed complete editorial control, including threats to remove other opinions and ban those who have them. He has decreed that any evidence from blogs (Wikipedia is a blog, by the way) is forbidden, and that there must be "multiple" sources for other information that Sanchez doesn't want published here. The only sources for Sanchez's porn videos are Internet film directories.

You also wanted to know about his prostitution website. Sanchez tried to erase all evidence of its existence. However, my partner preserved it, and a whole bunch of other stuff that Wikipedia wants to exclude. It's all verified. Elonka, WJBscribe, and Sanchez's other publicists and protectors at Wikipedia want to ignore it. They say that because my partner calls Sanchez a fool on his website, that it's a hatred site and therefore nothing can be trusted there.

What a crock. If having an opinion invalidates facts, then Wikipedia better start excluding information from any newspaper that carries an editorial page. Here is a link to my partner's site. Go to the page called "Evidence Locker." Everything is there. 24.18.130.89 04:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To WJBscribe

You wrote in response to another user who protested my being banned:

"As I didn't block Truthjusticeamericanway it seems odd that you've raised this here. Seraphimblade might be a better person to talk to if you wish to dispute that block."

To quote your own words: Oh, come off it.

Do you really expect that anyone will believe that, if you didn't want that ban to come off, that it wouldn't be removed? You've already waved a wand and made Elonka, a senior editor whose represehensible conduct drove my partner from Wikipedia, into an administrator. You've violated every Wikipedia rule with impunity. And now you're going to claim that there's nothing you can do.

Oh, come off it. 24.18.130.89 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]