Talk:Mark Sanchez/Archive 1

NOTE: Every single editor on this page, save for Bobak and Ronbo76, were revealed to be the same abusive sockpuppet and banned accordingly.

Sourced Material Should Remain

Since the material is sourced, there is no reason to remove it. It falls completely within the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia for living persons.

JWright0 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The story isn't one that's notable enough to warrant such an extended explanation. The case was a non-starter. It deserves note, but nothing too extensive --if we were to start having the play-by-play he said/she said for every accusation for every athlete we'd have a mess of very non-notable information. For a USC comparison of where an extended story of accusations may be appropriate, take OJ Simpson (please :-) ). --Bobak 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree on this point due to the fact that if material is sourced, it should be presented. Otherwise, it comes down to personal selection of material that is on a site. If there are sources with conflicting evidence, then they, too, should be included. However, material that is sourced, regardless of one's view on the matter, should never be deleted if it has been made public by legitimate news media. Pro or con, include the material if there is a source, but never delete material that is informative and sheds light.

JWright0 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The general view regarding the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide as much information as possible, as long as it is sourced.

So with that end, I support the view that if something is written about a living person and there are citations from other sources supporting the quotes, then it should be included on a person's biography. In a case of "He said/She said," if there is information that can be cited from the other side, then that should be included as part of a living person's biography. It should not be up to a user to present a view that paints someone in a positive or negative way, simply because they do not like the content provided.

This is not a popularity contest, so all information should be included, so long as the information presented is substantiated by citations from legitimate sources.

Linc Park 02:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is sourced material that does not reflect what was in the article. There is also a reference to a blog that does not make speficic reference to the player, only hinting at him. I'm no fan and couldn't care either way but it is important not to use this site for personal differences and hatchet jobs with ellipitical quotes and misquotes patched together, especially in biographies.

I noted and reversed the earlier deletion by an anonymous IP of the cited references. Let one editor see these comments reflecting the fact that the citations have been materially changed. A decision can be reached at that point. Ronbo76 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion

Certainly there should be no restrictions on information from media sources if the references are clear and provide evidence of what is written. If there are media sources or any other sources (DA report, university report, etc.) that present other views or information, then that should be referenced and included in the profile. I strongly agree that sourced information from (legitimate) media sources should be presented to offer the most extensive information database. Otherwise, this becomes an issue of one person's subjective opinion of what should be written in a profile, rather than providing all possible information that is readily available and verified by media sources.

SSeas 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To the sudden rash of new accounts:

If you can't come up with actual arguments for why this is "notable" (pay attention to the word), then you have no position. Simply "balancing the argument" achieves nothing if there is no significance. Now, come back at me when you have answers, but sock-puppets and rashes of suddenly-new accounts supporting any one position have a very low reputation on Wikipedia. --Bobak 02:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself. You don't want new accounts, yet you also don't want information that is not currently considered "news worthy." Just because something happened in the past, should it not be included if there is information from media sources?

This is significant because it provides information about a person's past that will, inevitably, follow him the rest of his life. This is information from media sources that covers more space than anything else about this certain person, so to remove it would be to remove the most written about aspect of the person's life.

It does not matter when I opened an account, because I still have a right to state that all information should be provided to allow readers an informative biography with as much information from media sources as possible. Otherwise, this becomes an issue of one person's subjective opinion of what should be written in a profile. Why deny all the information available?

SSeas 03:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've actually mis-stated the way information on a person is prioritized on any encyclopedia. The kid was arrested because he was suspected of something, nothing came of it. While noting he was arrested, briefly noting the allegation and then noting it was dismissed and no action on those charges was ever taken. If a person is really curious, they can simply follow the references. Answer this position and cover the points. Unless I get a legitimate answer from the new accounts, I will take the next step in the dispute resolution process. --Bobak 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you have actually removed the references, that would make it impossible to follow them. So forward this to mediation, you have no case. The point of Wikipedia is to provide as much information as possible, but you insist on providing a subjective view based on one person's opinion of what should be written in a profile.

Whether the person was "suspected" of a crime or actually charged, the information regarding the situation, as long as there is information from media sources, should always be presented. It is not up to you to decide what may or may not be included. Everything should be included.

SSeas 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to hear Bobak give a compelling argument as to why information that is available from news sources should be prevented from appearing. Just because charges were never brought against Sanchez, it does not mean that references cannot be made to the situation. This is especially the case considering that all these statements are supported by various published reports. No one is saying whether Sanchez is guilty or not-guilty; rather, that all the information available should be presented and people can make up their own mind. It is absurd for Bobak to determine what people should read if there is wealth of information being denied the reader to make a more informed decision. JWright0 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Bobak is blatantly violating the very guidelines regarding Wikipedia's newcomers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Linc Park 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see today's edits for material changes

An anonymous IP earlier today deleted references to this article. After being reverted, this same IP made material changes. I would like another editor's opinion. Ronbo76 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The changes were clearly POV and not sourced. So due to the constant vandalized changes, the changes have been reverted and editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. RPrinter 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous IP user is citing his own personal information to further the cause of the individual whom the article is about and obviously is an acquaintance of the subject. This would make the changes an obvious conflict of interest, thus violating Wikipedia's standards against such COIs. I move to block this user from making any further changes on Wikipedia due to an obvious conflict of interest. Hector M Lopez 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two IPs at work. See the diffs in edit history. Someone is trying to clear the record. Ronbo76 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a friend of Mark Sanchez, but I do have the ability to read. Please click on the sources and let me know if my characterization was more accurate or less accurate as the characterization you keep restoring. For example, you keep restoring "This followed a series of other incidents on campus the previous few months, where Sanchez was detained by USC's Department of Public Safety for a variety of infractions, including breaking a fraternity house window, public intoxication and disruptive behavior." The source says no such thing. It says only that ONE earlier time a month prior he was detained (but not arrested which my edit pointed out) for allegedly (another term the original author left out) breaking a fraternity window. In the other edit, I only correctly revised it to note that it was reported by a blog and used the exact wording used by Wolf to make it more accurate. Also Wolf said "a local paper," not a "Los Angeles paper". Papers from Orange County, Long Beach, etc. are considered local papers, but are not Los Angeles papers. Unless you can provide a source in which says "Los Angeles paper", then please stop this incorrect characterization. I do not need to provide another source, because the sources I am using are the actual sources already cited--indeed the restored version is the version putting in statements that are not supprted by cites. Ronbo and RPrinter, before you accuse someone of vandalism, please feel free to check the cited source to see if the edit is incorrect. The fact that you are not makes me think you somehow have a bias in this. I would like another editor to not only read this explanation, but show me where my edits dor not more accurately reflect what was in the cited sources.

It is vandalism to remove a cited paragraph without a source. Here is the differential edit. The other edits by this anonymous IP are also there and have been reversed by regular editors.

I have no bias as my record is very clear as Recent Changes Patrol editor. This article is on my Watchlist as a regular user. Ronbo76 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the information you have posted is of a personal nature and contains editorial content that would not make it a matter of encyclopedic integrity. The existing record that was presented before your changes was of a chronological nature, yet by deleting it, you are attempting to make a case for one side of a particular argument, thus making it a subjective issue. The tone of your changes inserts irrelevant personal information that attempts to give one particular point of view that is favorable to the subject of the article, which in turn makes it a conflict of interest issue. I understand it may be frustrating to read controversial content about someone you may know, but if the article is entirely referenced and free from editorial content, then its inclusion is appropriate. To make changes solely due to being an acquaintance of the article subject makes it a direct violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Hector M Lopez 01:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hector, do not speak in the abstract. Please use examples. How exactly does me changing "This followed a series of other incidents on campus the previous few months, where Sanchez was detained by USC's Department of Public Safety for a variety of infractions, including breaking a fraternity house window, public intoxication and disruptive behavior," which was not waht the source said, to actually what was said in the cited source irrelevant personal information? I have put in no personal information. Please show me exatly what irrelevant personal information I have inserted. How about this, Hector. You point out where in the cited KNBC article it says that Sanchez was involved in a series (as opposed to one) of other incidents on campus the previous few months, where Sanchez was detained by USC's Department of Public Safety for a variety (as opposed to one) of infractions, including ... public intoxication and disruptive behavior. Again, I have never met Mark Sanchez in my life.

The recent changes that were made by anonymous users, which may or may not have been you, included, among many changes, information about who was in a room, unsourced information regarding other football players, information about the subject's family, and inserted information out of context in order to provide a favorable point of view about the article subject. That clearly comprises the integrity of the article and makes it a conflict of interest issue. Again, the changes that were made today by anonymous users may or may not have been made by you, but they certainly were of a personal nature and attempted to provide only one particular side of an argument. Hector M Lopez 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My apoligies, Hector, those changes were not made by me. But the editors here, in deleting those edits, keep deleting my edits which are FAR more accurate that the ones they keep restoring. Is that fair? Of course not. I gave my example above. I think you will agree that it is not something that violates Wikipedia's guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.146.203.100 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I have a known history of being a registered user who "strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues." I uphold these standards on a daily basis. I am also a Recent Changes Patroller and a member of the Counter Vandalism Unit, so no conflict of bias exists in my changes. RPrinter 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

RPrinter, I originally deleted the statements as they were obvious intentional mischaracterizations, and, therefore, I assumed they were made with someone clearly not inteding to use a neutral POV. I understand why that whoesale deletion was undone. However, there is absolutely no justification you can give for the subsequent edits to the content of the statements. Just answer these questions: (a) Do I need to give a cite to make a statement conform to the cite already given? (b) Were the statements as edited by me more accurate or less accurate than the version you guys keep restoring? I already gave you examples above. It does not good for Wilkipedia to have Recent Changes Patrol editors if they don't bother to read the cited sources to verify that a recent change was incorrect. I will take you for your word that you are unbiased. Before you reply, please read my edits and the cited sources. If my my edits statements are more accurate, then you need to restore them and cease issung me additional warnings. Fair enough?

I have gone back to re-read your changes and have to stand by the statement that it was POV and unsourced for several reasons: 1) You inserted "A month earlier, Sanchez was detained by campus security -- but not arrested -- for allegedly breaking a window at a fraternity party." By inserting "but not arrested," which the article never claimed, it makes a pointed statement to provide a bias of the severity of the incident. 2) You inserted "it was posted on a blog that a "local" newspaper," with the quotation mark around the word "local" making it a subjective issue, thus placing the emphasis on the word local. In order for an article to be NPOV, it cannot have personal prejudices inserted. Providing the facts as presented, without emphasizing on one point of view or characterization maintains a NPOV. Otherwise, by inserting quotation marks around certain words or stating something that could could be considered redundant, provides the impression that the user has their own agenda and it is perhaps deliberately done as a POV. I hope you do not take this personally, as I never make personal attacks and wish only to maintain neutrality on controversial issues. I thank you for your input, but based on past edits on Wikipedia, your changes do appear to give the impression of POV. RPrinter 02:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the quotation marks around local--I only included them because just to say local sounded weird since their isn't a paper local to Wikipedia, while there are papers local to the blog and because the source used the term "local" in lieu of stating the specific paper. You ar really reaching here, and I think you know it. Regarding your other statement, you are just plain wrong. The NBC-4 article clearly states "[t]he newspaper also reported that Sanchez was detained by campus security last month -- but not arrested -- for allegedly breaking a window at a fraternity party." Look it up. The words "but not arrested" were from the cited source, not instered by me. I will accept your apology no problem. Also, please show me where "[t]his followed a series of other incidents on campus the previous few months, where Sanchez was detained by USC's Department of Public Safety for a variety of infractions, including ... public intoxication and disruptive behavior," is included in the cited source. I would assume, since you continued to restore it, that you verified that such statement was correct.

Read the last paragraph on this page. There is a broken URL. I would bet the other two editors would not allowed unsourced or poorly sourced info in a WP:BLP article. I know I don't. Ronbo76 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But that was not the article to which they cited for that statement, now was it? Again, show me the source that supports that statement or allow it to be deleted by Wikipedia's standards. And guess what? Every time you restore that previous uncited statement, you are re-publishing it (as far as satifying one of the elements of libel goes). This is not a threat as I have no standing to sue you for that if that statement is indeed not true (I don't know if it is true or not, only that the cited source clearly does not state that), only to point out that your zeal is causing you to make some clear errors.

When I was referring to "the article," I was referring to the Wikipedia article, not a media article. By stating that it was campus security that detained the subject, and not the Los Angeles Police Department, by inserting "but not arrested," it makes the statement redundant. RPrinter 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point makes NO sense. The journalist who wrote the cited source did not think there was a redundancy problem, but rather thought it was important enough of a point to print. Who are you to state otherwise? You can be both detained AND arrested, by the way, or you can be detained and then subsequently arrested. Being detained in no way precludes you from being arrested. Seriously, you messed up by deleteing my edits when deleting the others (throwing the baby out with the bathwater). All you had ot do now was explain that, apologize and restore my edits. Instead you twist and squirm trying to justify why my edits did not meet Wikipedia's standards. They clearly did.

You are reading two different paragraphs. He was arrested as a suspect in one case and detained in another. Ronbo76 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the statement to which I inserted the "but not arrested" was to the same allegation noting such in the cited source.

This was my interpretation too. But, as an editor, I stepped back and asked for comment on this talkpage. A very basic warning for all controversial edits is that they should be discussed first on a talkpage otherwise they may be seen as vandalism. And again, the deletion of a cited paragraph is vandalism which makes subsequent POV edits very suspect. Ronbo76 02:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I brought attention to this matter, I will say that it appears at least two other editors agree with me that you made POV edits to these paragraphs. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a very basic policy in editting Wikipedia. This is an established article, not dreamt up by anyone. It properly cites the facts. If you would like to counter, I would suggest first that you introduce your topic here on the talkpage with proper citations. Ronbo76 01:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What amazes me is none of you have yet to address what I have written here. I already said I understand why the deletions were undone. However, have you bothered to read the cited sources? Where in the KNBC article that is cited are the facts "that Sanchez was involved in a series (as opposed to one) of other incidents on campus the previous few months, where Sanchez was detained by USC's Department of Public Safety for a variety (as opposed to one) of infractions, including ... public intoxication and disruptive behavior?" Where in Scott Wolf's blog did it say the paper was a "Los Angeles" newspaper? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.146.203.100 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Our point to you is that in a nutshell, that is how it reads to us. You are now beating a dead horse. Ronbo76 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And my point in a nutshell is that you continually refuse to answer my questions. If you want this horse to stop being beat, then answer them. My suspicion is tht you did look at the source, clearly see that it did NOT support the statements you keep restoring and would rather save face than admit your error. How about I change the statement to exactly what was wuoted in the cited sources, complete with quotation marks so that no plagarism issue esits, would that work? That way no one could say I am insterting any of my personal point of view as to what the sources said. Fair enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.146.203.100 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Now I see what is happening, other people keep making non-cited or personal changes, but you editors just keep reverting everything rather than bothering to see if changes made by others (read "me") also fit into this category. My edits have not violated anything. It is not only unfair to delete my changes because others are making bad edits, but I would say you are violating your own principles in doing so.

Recommend citation number one be replaced

I did not notice but that citation is from a blog which is not a recommended source vis-a-vis WP:EL. Most of the info is contained in the KNBC URL USC Suspends Football Player Under Investigation that is a later reference.

It seems to accurately reflect the consensus opinion. Ronbo76 01:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The basic facts as per this article:

• Sanchez was released from jail on Thursday after he was arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a female student.
• The newspaper also reported that Sanchez was detained by campus security last month -- but not arrested -- for allegedly breaking a window at a fraternity party.

Unfortunately the LA Times URL cannot be accessed. It probably had the full details of all the incidents as it is also cited.

Other regular editors to this article never had a problem with this paragraph until two anonymous IPs showed up today. Ronbo76 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that Wikipedia standards allowed editors to assume what may have been written in an article they cannot access. I wa also unaware that if someone had not previously edited an incorrect statement, that means someone cannot subsequently edit it. Please point those guidelines out to me.

I have had both anonymous IPs traced and one of them has a history of posting information regarding USC football on numerous message boards throughout the internet. So I would have to state that based on a history of making POV statements from this IP, this user may have a potential conflict of interest in regards to a controversial issue regarding a USC football player. RPrinter 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is clearly crossing the line. It is one thing if I had been vandalizing a bunch of stuff. [I deleted the place of business which is NOT relevant to your discussion of bias (and can be accessed by anyone looking at the history or can be looked up by them on their own), so I can only assume it was meant to be punitive]. RPrinter, you have clearly now tried to make this personal as you are getting frustrated realizing that my two edits were totally legitimate. At this point it is clear that you have a conflict of interest in editing this article insofar as my edits go. I ask that you remove yourself from further editing. Also I ask another editor (not one of your buddies here) to aks what is biased about (a) taking out information that was NOT in the cited article and instead reprinting the statement almost verbatim (maybe my biggest crime is not using quotes), (b) noting that the one statement was reported by a blog (please note that blogs are definitely considered lesser sources than other media) and (c) changing it to a local paper rather than a Los Angeles paper (the blog entry never said it was a Los Angeles paper). Heck not even Mark Sanchez' own family would can about (c)--I saw an error and fixed it.

Tracing IPs of users with a history of disputed and vandalized edits on Wikipedia is standard practice and is certainly not considered crossing the line. You can search the Wikipedia database and see for yourself that IPs are traced on a daily basis for the purpose of being banned. Your statements regarding me are offensive and of a personal nature. You have no right to demand I remove myself from editing on Wikipedia and are attempting to make this into a personal issue, which it is not. RPrinter 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem intent on making accusations which will not fly on Wikipedia. Looking at user:RPrinter's contrib and talkpage records, he has a good track here with edits/reverts/interactions. My track record is somewhat the same. Believe me that as Recent Change Patrol editor if I thought he was in error, I would correct him by all means available.

For a new person/IP to Wikipedia to ask him to remove himself is the highpoint of utter lunacy. Your own record yesterday stands. If you do not like what you read here, here is a direct quote from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you are unhappy here, then you please and Wikipedia will continue. Ronbo76 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I stand by all the previous comments. And, you may have missed the copyright symbol in Times article. You do not have the right to reproduce it here. That is a copy right violation (copyvio). I will now ask for review.

Then feel free to delete it, but what option do I have if you guys are going to state that something was in that article which was not other than to post the text of the article? If I were to post only a portion, you would say that it could have been in another portion. But you stand by your statement, okay. Yeah, you are right, that article stated that Sanchez was involved "in a series of other incidents on campus the previous few months, where Sanchez was detained by USC's Department of Public Safety for a variety of infractions, including breaking a fraternity house window, public intoxication and disruptive behavior." No, you guys didn't mess up on that one. Fine, keep the article with uncited information and then feel free to post the employers of those who point that out. Keep up the good work!